Estrada-Aguiar
United States v. Estrada-Aguiar
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Pursuant to his conditional plea agreement, Conrado Estrada-Aguiar appeals the district court’s conclusion that his confession was voluntary and the Miranda warning remained effective through the time of his confession. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history, we need not recount them here.
The district court correctly held that a new Miranda warning was not required prior to the conversation at issue. No more than an hour and a half elapsed between the Miranda warning and confession, and there was only approximately thirty-five minutes between the official interrogation and the car-ride discussion, during which time Estrada-Aguiar was detained and processed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service at the Calexico border crossing. Under these facts, the time and events between advising Estrada-Aguiar of his constitutional rights and subsequent confession are not significantly appreciable to require a new Miranda warning. See, e.g., United States v. Andaverde, 64 F.3d 1305, 1308 (9th Cir.1995); Guam v. Dela Pena, 72 F.3d 767, 770 (9th Cir.1995); United States v. Nordling, 804 F.2d 1466, 1470 (9th Cir.1986).