Swartz

MEMORANDUM *

Pauline May Swartz appeals her conviction, under section 18 U.S.C. § 641 , for *238 theft of government property. In February 2003, Swartz was convicted for stealing funds deposited by the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) into an account for which Swartz and her mother were cosignatories. In her appeal, Swartz argues that the district court erred (1) in denying her motion to suppress statements made during an interview with SSA Special Agents without the benefit of Miranda warnings and (2) in denying her motion to dismiss the indictment for excessive preindictment delay in prosecution. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

In addressing the district court’s admission of Swartz’s interview statements, we first note that an officer is required to give a suspect Miranda warnings only for a “custodial interrogation.” Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495 , 97 S.Ct. 711 , 50 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977) (per curiam) (“Miranda warnings are required only where there has been such a restriction on a person’s freedom as to render him ‘in custody.’”). A suspect is deemed “in custody,” when, under the totality of the circumstances surrounding interrogation,…