Armstrong

MEMORANDUM *

Defendant Roland Terry Armstrong (“Armstrong”) was convicted of sexual abuse, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2242 (2)(B). Armstrong appeals his conviction, arguing that the district court erred: (1) by not suppressing statements made by Armstrong to law enforcement agents; (2) by refusing Armstrong’s reasonable doubt jury instruction; (3) by not granting a mistrial in response to a statement by a government witness; (4) by not granting a Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal; and (5) by not granting a mistrial in response to a statement by the government in its closing rebuttal argument. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recite them in detail. We affirm.

DISCUSSION

I. Suppression of Armstrong’s Admission

Armstrong contends that his statement to the law enforcement agents should have been suppressed because he did not receive the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and because the statement was not voluntarily given. We review de novo whether a defendant is constitutionally entitled to Miranda warnings. United States v. Crawford, 372 F.3d 1048, 1053 (9th Cir.2004) (en banc), cert.…