Malloy

*522 MEMORANDUM **

Kevin Patrick Malloy appeals his conviction following bench trial and his sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922 (g)(1) and 924(e). We affirm.

I.

Malloy argues that the district court erred by not suppressing the incriminating statements made by him at the police station after his arrest and medical treatment because Malloy was not re-advised of his Miranda rights before the interrogation. Where successive custodial interrogations after an initial Miranda warning occur, we must consider the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the defendant should have been re-advised of his or her Miranda rights to ensure that the subsequent interrogations are not coerced. Wyrick v. Fields, 459 U.S. 42, 49 , 103 S.Ct. 394 , 74 L.Ed.2d 214 (1982).

Malloy was advised of his Miranda rights at about 10:30 a.m. on the morning of September 8, 1999. At about 2:00 p.m., after his return from the hospital, Malloy was questioned by detectives without being re-advised of his Miranda rights. Malloy was not questioned while undergoing treatment that rendered him helpless, see Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 399-401 , 98…