Pletcher

MEMORANDUM *

Adam Quinn Pletcher appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, in which he challenges his conviction for four counts of mailing threatening communications with intent to extort, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876 . Pletcher raises two ineffective assistance of counsel arguments. Because the parties are familiar with the facts we recite them only as necessary. We affirm.

Pletcher first argues that his lawyer was ineffective because he failed to obtain an order from the court suppressing Pletcher’s confession. But Pletcher failed to establish that the confession could or should have been suppressed. Even assuming arguendo that Pletcher was in custody, so long as Pletcher’s pre-Miranda inculpatory statement was voluntary, the voluntariness of the post-Miranda confession had to be analyzed in light of its independent surrounding circumstances. See Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 318 , 105 S.Ct. 1285 , 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985); see also United States v. Orso, 266 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc) (discussing Elstad’s holding), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 828 , 123 S.Ct. 125 , 154 L.Ed.2d 42 (2002). Custody does not equate to coercion. Rather, “[t]he…