Hoffman

MEMORANDUM *

Hubert Glenn Hoffman appeals his conviction and sentence for importing marijuana and for possessing it with intent to distribute. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 , 960; 18 U.S.C. § 2 . We affirm.

(1) Hoffman first asserts that his statements after his arrest should have been suppressed as involuntary. 1 He claims that the mere fact that the statements were taken after the so-called six-hour safe harbor period, 2 means that they must be suppressed. That is not the law, and in this case the district court did not err when it effectively determined that the excess delay, if any there was, did not require suppression. See United States v. Gamez, 301 F.3d 1138, 1144 (9th Cir.2002); United States v. Padilla-Mendoza, 157 F.3d 730, 731-32 (9th Cir.1998); United States v. Van Poyck, 77 F.3d 285, 288-89 (9th Cir.1996). Moreover, its determination that his will was not overborne due to his physical condition, or otherwise, was not erroneous. See Gamez, 301 F.3d at 1144 ; United States v. Coleman, 208 F.3d 786, 791 (9th Cir.2000); United States v. Kelley, 953 F.2d 562, 565 (9th Cir.1992). In fine, his confession was voluntary.

(2) Hoffman next claims that the evidence was insufficient to…