United States v. Andres Ortega

MEMORANDUM

Andres Ortega Alcaraz (“Alcaraz”) appeals his convictions for two counts of possessing pseudoephedrine knowing or having reasonable cause to believe it will be used to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (c)(2), and one count of conspiring to do the same, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 .

1. The Miranda warning was not constitutionally deficient. The officer’s warning “reasonably conveyed [Alcaraz’s] right to have an attorney present ... at all times.” Florida v. Powell, 559 U.S. 50 , 130 S.Ct. 1195, 1205 , 175 L.Ed.2d 1009 (2010); see also Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195, 203 , 109 S.Ct. 2875 , 106 L.Ed.2d 166 (1989). The given warning was “sufficiently comprehensive and comprehensible when given a commonsense reading,” Powell, 130 S.Ct. at 1205 , and “nothing in the warningG ... suggested any limitation on the right to the presence of appointed counsel.” California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355, 360-61 , 101 S.Ct. 2806 , 69 L.Ed.2d 696 (1981) (per curiam). As in People of the Territory of Guam v. Snaer, 758 F.2d 1341 (9th Cir.1985), the Miranda warning Al-caraz received “adequately convey[ed] notice of the right to consult with an attorney…