Valenzuela-Alvarado

United States v. Valenzuela-Alvarado

Good Law
39 F. App'x 538
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 22, 2002No. 00-10420; D.C. No. CR-99-00902-ROSCalifornia989 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

As the facts are known to the parties, we do not recite them here. For the reasons that follow, we • affirm the district court’s judgment and sentence.

Valenzuela argues that because he has a limited education, his Miranda waiver was not valid. To be valid, a waiver of rights must be voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently given. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966); United States v. Doe, 170 F.3d 1162, 1168 (9th Cir.1999). We must accept the district court’s factual finding of knowing and intelligent waiver unless clearly erroneous. Doe, 170 F.3d at 1168 .

Valenzuela does not argue that he was coerced or threatened so as to render his waiver involuntary; rather, he argues that, given his educational and cultural background, his waiver was neither knowing nor intelligent. Agent Martin read Valenzuela his Miranda rights in Spanish, and he told her, in Spanish, that he understood those rights. He signed the Spanish form stating that he understood his Miranda rights and that he waived those rights. Valenzuela does not dispute this. Therefore, we must find that his waiver was knowing and intelligent. See United *540 States v.…

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.