Asensio-Boy-Adzhyan

MEMORANDUM *

We reject the four grounds for relief urged by Zoyla Isolina Asensio-Boyadzhyan in this appeal.

First, we review de novo the district court’s denial of Asensio-Boyadzhyan’s motion to suppress her post-arrest statement. The district. court’s voluntariness determination is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. See United States v. Sherwood, 98 F.3d 402, 403 (9th Cir.1996). Asensio-Boyadzhyan’s statement was spontaneous and not the result of interrogation, and therefore its admission did not violate her Miranda rights. See Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 300 , 100 S.Ct. 1682 , 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980). Nor was the statement coerced in any way, which satisfies the Fifth Amendment. See United States v. Bautista-Avila, 6 F.3d 1360, 1364 (9th Cir.1993).

Second, we review for abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to exclude under Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(d)(2) the testimony of Asensio-Boyadzhyan’s expert accountant as a sanction for Asensio-Boyadzhyan’s violation of Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(b)(1)(C). See United States v. Mandel, 914 F.2d 1215, 1219 (9th Cir.1990). The district court had evidence before it from which it could reasonably conclude that…