Ackerman

MEMORANDUM *

Stanley Ackerman appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress and his motions for judgment of acquittal, and the district court’s refusal to make a downward adjustment in his sentence for acceptance of responsibility. Because the facts are known to the parties, we do not recite them here. We affirm.

1. Denial of Motion to Suppress Statement

Ackerman argues that the district court erred 1 in refusing to suppress his statement to law enforcement. “Coercive po-lic[e] activity is a necessary predicate to finding a confession involuntary.” 2 There is no evidence that the officer engaged in any coercive activity in this case, thereby distinguishing it from Mincey v. Arizona. 3 The district court’s determination that the officers’ account of the brief interaction with Ackerman was credible is not clearly erroneous. Therefore, Ackerman cannot prevail on this claim.

II. Denial of Motions for Judgment of Acquittal

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, we conclude that a rational jury could have found that Ackerman was driving at the time of the accident. 4 The Government presented plausible evidence that Ackerman was driving.…