Mauleon

United States v. Mauleon

Good Law
5 F. App'x 782
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 15, 2001No. 99-50521; D.C. No. CR-97-00614 CBM-3California1,070 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Crisanto Garcia Mauleon (“Garcia”) appeals his 120-month sentence following a guilty verdict on the charge of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1). He also appeals the denial of his pre-trial motion to suppress statements made to law enforcement officers. We have jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (a). We affirm the district court’s denial of Garcia’s motion to suppress, reverse the 120-month sentence and remand for re-sentencing.

Garcia challenges the admission of two statements: (1) a post-arrest statement made to Detective Caloca and (2) a eonfes *784 sion given to Special Agents Briggs and Pothier during a later interrogation.

The district court ruled that Garcia’s statements to Caloca were “voluntary, that they were not as a result of interrogation, [and] that there was no requirement that [Garcia] be advised of his Miranda rights.” We agree. Caloca questioned Garcia about his role as a witness to an unrelated homicide; he did not question Garcia about his pending drug charges, and specifically informed Garcia that he did not want to discuss the drug charges. The trial court correctly…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.