Swanger

MEMORANDUM *

Daniel Dean Swanger (“Swanger”) appeals his conviction for one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1). Swanger argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements he made while being interrogated after he invoked his right to counsel. We find that the district court’s findings were incompíete and inconsistent with the record. Accordingly, we remand this case to allow the court to make additional factual findings.

In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), the Supreme Court held that once a person is arrested, he or she has the right to remain silent and the right to consult with an attorney. Id. at 467, 469 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 . If the suspect “indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking there can be no questioning.” Id. at 444-45 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 . Furthermore, “waiver cannot be found from a suspect’s continued response to questions, even if he is again advised of his rights.” Smith v. Endell, 860 F.2d 1528, 1529 (9th Cir.1988) (citing Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 484-85 , 101 S.Ct.…