Huber

MEMORANDUM *

Adam Joseph Huber appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. He argues that his statements to the FBI should be suppressed because the FBI agents did not record his custodial interrogation electronically. We review de novo, United States v. Okafor, 285 F.3d 842, 845 (9th Cir.2002), and affirm.

Huber invites us, “under this Court’s supervisory powers,” to require the electronic recording of all custodial interrogations that occur in fixed detention facilities. Huber argues that the remedy for the failure to record such interrogations should be suppression, unless the government can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that electronic recording was not feasible under the circumstances.

United States v. Coades, 549 F.2d 1303 (9th Cir.1977), precludes Huber’s suggestion. In Coades , we affirmed that the

*124 testimony of an FBI agent was not subject to suppression. Id. at 1305 The agent testified that during a custodial interrogation the defendant had confessed to attempting a bank robbery. Id. The defendant argued that the agent’s testimony should be suppressed on the ground that the FBI failed to record the interrogation “electronically or…