Villanueva

*148 MEMORANDUM **

Salvador Villanueva appeals his conviction and sentence for conspiring to traffic in counterfeit goods in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 2320(a), smuggling goods into the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 545 , and attempting to traffic in counterfeit goods in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2320 . Villanueva argues that the district court erred in admitting statements he made to customs officials and also challenges his sentence.

Villanueva contends that the district court erred in admitting statements in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Although he admits he received Miranda warnings, Villanueva contends that the government subjected him to an impermissible two-step interrogation process prohibited by Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 , 124 S.Ct. 2601 , 159 L.Ed.2d 643 (2004). Miranda warnings are only required when a defendant is subjected to custodial interrogation. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 . Recognizing that the standard for custody is more permissive in the context of border stops, we conclude that Villanueva was not in custody for purposes of Miranda. Cf. United States v. Butler,…