Hemmings

MEMORANDUM *

Jason Avalon Hemmings appeals a final judgment of conviction following his conditional guilty plea to armed bank robbery and brandishing a gun during a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a)(d) and 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c). Specifically, Hemmings challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress his confession. The district court determined that, at the time of his confession, Hemmings was not “in custody” for the purposes of Miranda. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

I.

A defendant is only “in custody” for the purposes of Miranda where, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would conclude after brief questioning that he or she was not free to leave. See United States v. Hayden, 260 F.3d 1062, 1066 (9th Cir.2001). Although Hemmings was subpoenaed and appeared at the FBI offices solely for the purpose of providing fingerprints and photographs, Agent Nordstrom informed Hemmings that he had complied with the subpoena after the fingerprints and photographs were taken and that he was free to leave both before and during the interrogation. See id. (holding that defendant was not in *70 custody…