Munoz-Ramirez

MEMORANDUM ***

Defendant-Appellant Jorge Munoz-Ramirez argues that the district court erred by denying his motion to dismiss Count 2 of the indictment and by denying the mo *958 tion to suppress Ms sworn statement. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

The district court properly denied Munoz-Ramirez’s motion to dismiss Count 2 of the indictment because the indictment alleged the requisite mens rea, that the defendant falsely and willfully represented himself to be a citizen of the Urnted States. See 18 U.S.C. § 911 (1994).

Munoz-Ramirez also argues that the district court erred in not suppressing his incriminating statement because the advisements given by the immigration officials were confusing. Neither party disputes that Munoz-Ramirez signed a written waiver of Ms Miranda rights after he was adequately advised. “An express written or oral statement of waiver of the right to remain silent or of the right to counsel is usually strong proof of the validity of that waiver, but is not inevitably either necessary or sufficient to establish waiver.” North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 373 , 99 S.Ct. 1755 , 60 L.Ed.2d 286 (1979). In this case, the…