George

MEMORANDUM *

Thomas John St. George (“St. George”) reserved the right of appeal from the denial of his suppression motion, and pled guilty to two counts of felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1). He contends that the district court erred in holding that the police did not violate his Miranda rights on the ground that he was not in custody, and in *428 refusing to suppress his statements and the physical evidence the police obtained as a result of his statements. We affirm.

In determining whether an individual was in custody, “the ultimate inquiry is simply whether there [was] a ‘formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement’ of the degree associated with a formal arrest.” California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121, 1125 , 103 S.Ct. 3517 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1275 (1983) (quoting Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495 , 97 S.Ct. 711 , 50 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977)). “[T]he initial determination of custody depends on the objective circumstances of the interrogation, not on the subjective views harbored by either the interrogating officers or the person being questioned.” Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 323 , 114 S.Ct. 1526 , 128 L.Ed.2d 293 (1994). Therefore,…