Patton
United States v. Patton
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Andrew Dean Patton appeals his conviction and sentence for possession of a listed chemical with intent to manufacture a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (c)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm his conviction. We remand his sentence under United States v. Ameline. 1 Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here.
The district court properly found that Patton was not entrapped as a matter of law. 2 The evidence did not show that the Government induced Patton to engage in criminal activity.
The district court properly admitted the testimony of two Government agents regarding statements Patton made while in custody. 4 Patton’s waiver of his Miranda rights did not have to be in writing. 5 Nor did the Government agents have to record Patton’s confession in order for their testimony about it to be admissible. 6 Moreover, Patton’s waiver of his Miranda rights and his confession were voluntary because the record does not show that the Government agents obtained his confession “by physical or psychological coercion or by improper inducement.”