Rice

MEMORANDUM ***

Royland Rice appeals the district court’s refusal to suppress statements, including a confession, that he made to an interrogating FBI agent. Particularly, he argues that he invoked his Miranda v. Arizona, *113 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), right to counsel and that pursuant to Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 , 101 S.Ct. 1880 , 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981), the FBI should have ceased all questioning.

In Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 , 114 S.Ct. 2350 , 129 L.Ed.2d 362 (1994), the Supreme Court held that a suspect must “unambiguously request counsel.” Id. at 459 , 114 S.Ct. 2350 . If the request is ambiguous, the government is free to continue questioning a suspect without clarifying the invocation. Id. at 459-62 , 114 S.Ct. 2350 . Here, the FBI was free to continue questioning Rice, and did not need to clarify his request, because his request for counsel did not materially differ from the statement “[m]aybe I should talk to a lawyer” that was found ambiguous in Davis. Id. at 462 , 114 S.Ct. 2350 .

Rice waived his arguments that he invoked his right to silence and that he never originally waived his Miranda rights by raising these issues…