United States v. Ramiro Cisneros-Hernandez , 597 F. App'x 933 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 16 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-50056
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:12-cr-00236-CAS-3
v.
MEMORANDUM*
RAMIRO CISNEROS-HERNANDEZ,
AKA Arturo Hernandez-Duran,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 10, 2014**
Pasadena, California
Before: PREGERSON, NOONAN, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Ramiro Cisneros-Hernandez (“Cisneros-Hernandez”) appeals his
convictions for conspiracy to import at least 100 kilograms of marijuana,
importation of at least 100 kilograms of marijuana, and possession with intent to
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
distribute at least 100 kilograms of marijuana. Cisneros-Hernandez contends that
the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress his Mirandized post-
arrest statements, and that the error was not harmless. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because the district court correctly denied the motion to
suppress, we affirm the conviction.
Given his physical and mental state after being shipwrecked on San Nicolas
Island1 for three days, the interrogation at the United States Navy facility on the
island, and the alleged use of handcuffs during the interrogation, Cisneros-
Hernandez argues that he involuntarily waived his Miranda rights. The
voluntariness of a waiver of Miranda rights is reviewed de novo. United States v.
Jennings, 515 F.3d 980, 986 (9th Cir. 2008). The district court’s underlying
factual findings are reviewed for clear error. United States v. Doe, 155 F.3d 1070,
1074 (9th Cir. 1998).
To determine whether a confession was voluntary, we focus on “‘whether
the defendant’s will was overborne by the circumstances surrounding the giving of
the confession,’ an inquiry that ‘takes into consideration the totality of all the
1
San Nicolas island is a remote island in the Channel Islands Chain, located
off the coast of Ventura County, California. It is exclusively occupied by the
United States Navy. The island is a secured military facility and only authorized
personnel are permitted on the island.
2
surrounding circumstances—both the characteristics of the accused and the details
of the interrogation.’” United States v. Preston, 751 F.3d 1008, 1016 (9th Cir.
2014) (en banc) (alterations omitted) (quoting Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S.
428, 434 (2000)). These factors and “‘all of the surrounding circumstances—the
duration and conditions of detention (if the confessor has been detained), the
manifest attitude of the police toward him, his physical and mental state, the
diverse pressures which sap or sustain his powers of resistance and self-
control—[are] relevant.’” Id. (quoting Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568, 602
(1961)).
Considering the totality of the circumstances, Cisneros-Hernandez’s will
was not overborne. First, there is no evidence that law enforcement officers
threatened or coerced Cisneros-Hernandez. Cisneros-Hernandez testified that he
felt he had no choice but to answer all the questions during his interrogation
because he said an unidentified federal agent told him he would go “to prison for
life” if he did not cooperate. The district court found this statement incredible,
however, because during the suppression hearing Cisneros-Hernandez “was unable
to recall the details of this alleged incident and much of what he did remember
conflicted with his sworn declaration.” Because there is no reliable evidence to
support Cisneros-Hernandez’s contention that his statements had been coerced by
3
the unknown agent’s threats, the district court’s factual finding is not clearly
erroneous. See Doe, 155 F.3d at 1074.
On the contrary, rather than being coercive, the two Department of
Homeland Security (“DHS”) agents who interviewed Cisneros-Hernandez spoke
calmly and professionally throughout the interview. The interview was conducted
by those two agents only. The interrogation was kept brief at approximately one
hour. Moreover, although he contends otherwise, Cisneros-Hernandez was not
held incommunicado. The agents advised Cisneros-Hernandez, a Mexican citizen,
that he could contact the Mexican Consulate or an attorney at anytime, yet he
affirmatively declined to do so.
Second, the physical and emotional ordeal Cisneros-Hernandez had endured
did not render his Miranda waiver and confession involuntary. Before he was
interviewed, Cisneros-Hernandez was given food, water, a blanket, and a place to
sleep for several hours in a heated room. Medical personnel cleared him for
questioning. One of the two interrogating DHS agents—who is also an Emergency
Medical Technician—checked Cisneros-Hernandez again and found that he
appeared to be in good condition; did not exhibit signs of dehydration or
confusion; and was cooperative, coherent, and responsive to questioning.
Third, although Cisneros-Hernandez argues that he should have been taken
4
to the mainland for questioning, there was good reason for the DHS agents to
interrogate him on the island: the agents went to the island to find and collect
evidence of possible drug smuggling and to determine whether there were any
other people on the island involved in the alleged crime. It was therefore important
to question Cisneros-Hernandez at the scene with minimal delay.
Finally, considering the totality of the circumstances, the alleged use of
handcuffs did not render the interrogation unduly coercive. The parties contest
whether Cisneros-Hernandez was handcuffed during the interview. Assuming
Cisneros-Hernandez was handcuffed, he had free movement of his hands and he
was able to eat trail mix and drink several cups of coffee during the interview.
Moreover, he had previous experience with law enforcement and with being
handcuffed. Although Cisneros-Hernandez acknowledged that he had prior
experience being handcuffed, he testified that the reason the handcuffs concerned
him during the interrogation on San Nicolas Island was the presence of the United
States Navy. Yet, he contradicted this statement when he testified that the United
States Navy personnel treated him well, gave him food and water, and were “well
behaved.” Because Cisneros-Hernandez had free use of his hands, had prior
experience being handcuffed, and admitted that he had no reason to be concerned
for his safety, the alleged use of handcuffs did not render the interrogation
5
coercive. See Greenawalt v. Ricketts, 943 F.2d 1020, 1027 (9th Cir. 1991) (finding
no coercive police activity where Miranda wavier was obtained from a handcuffed
defendant whose restraints were loosened upon his request, who had previous
experience with the police, and who was not treated roughly).
Considering the totality of the circumstances, Cisneros-Hernandez’s will
was not overborne and his waiver and confession were voluntary. He was not
threatened by the DHS agents, but was instead given food, water, medical
treatment, a blanket, and a place to rest for several hours before being interrogated.
The agents were polite; the interview was brief; and Cisneros-Hernandez knew he
could contact an attorney or the Mexican Consulate if he wanted assistance. He
also had previous experience with law enforcement in which he was handcuffed.
Thus, the district court did not err in denying Cisneros-Hernandez’s motion to
suppress.
Because we find Cisneros-Hernandez voluntarily waived his Miranda rights,
we affirm the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress and affirm the
conviction.
AFFIRMED.
6