Solorio-Gonzalez
United States v. Solorio-Gonzalez
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Antonio Solorio-Gonzalez appeals his convictions for bringing an alien into the country for financial gain and without presentation. 8 U.S.C. § 1324 (a)(2)(B)(ii)-(iii). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here.
I
The district court correctly ruled that Solorio’s confession was voluntary because his will was not “overborne by the circumstances surrounding [its] giving. ...” Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 434 , 120 S.Ct. 2326 , 147 L.Ed.2d 405 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). Officer Armijo told Solorio why he was detained and twice read him his Miranda rights in Spanish before questioning Solorio. Solorio waived his Miranda rights after each reading. Armijo did not use intimidation, physical force, improper promises or threats when questioning Solorio. Solorio was alert and not impaired by drugs or alcohol when he confessed. The room where Solorio was questioned had two windows that allowed people passing in the busy hallway to view his interrogation. Solorio was not handcuffed, and Armijo’s weapon was holstered during the interrogation.