United States v. Delbert Holley, Jr.

MEMORANDUM

Delbert Holley appeals his conviction for making false statements in the acquisition of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (a)(6). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm Holley’s conviction.

The district court properly denied Holley’s motion to suppress his January 6, 2010, statements to San Diego County sheriffs detectives because Holley was not then in custody as is necessary to require warnings under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). See United States v. Craighead, 539 F.3d 1073, 1083-84 (9th Cir.2008). There was ample evidence to prove that only two detectives were present for the interrogation in Holley’s home, Holley was not restrained, and he was not isolated from the members of his family, who were in the room when he was questioned. In the totality of the circumstances, Holley was not questioned in the “police-dominated atmosphere” that makes an interrogation in a person’s home custodial and, therefore, requires Miranda warnings. See Craighead, 539 F.3d at 1083-84 .

Because Holley was not in custody for the purpose of Miranda when he made statements to the detectives on January 6, 2010, the…