United States v. Celcio Perez-Villanueva , 393 F. App'x 489 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 09-50457
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:08-cr-03611-JM-1
v.
MEMORANDUM *
CELCIO JAVIER PEREZ-
VILLANUEVA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Jeffrey T. Miller, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted August 6, 2010
Pasadena, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, WARDLAW, Circuit Judge, and SINGLETON,
Senior District Judge.**
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable James K. Singleton, United States District Judge for
the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.
Celcio Javier Perez-Villanueva appeals from his conviction for reentering
the United States after a prior removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The motion to suppress was properly denied because, unlike the
administrative rights given in United States v. San Juan-Cruz, 314 F.3d 384, 389
(9th Cir. 2002), Perez’s consular rights, given to him before he was read his
Miranda rights, did not contradict or undermine the Miranda rights.
The record demonstrates that Perez’s Miranda waiver was voluntary,
knowing, and intelligent. The Border Patrol Agent explained the significance of the
Miranda rights to Perez, and clarified that “[b]efore we ask you any questions you
need to understand your rights.” Perez never indicated any confusion or
uncertainty. Moreover, Perez signed a written waiver, was read his rights in
Spanish, his native language, and had prior experience with the American criminal
justice system. See United States v. Gamez, 301 F.3d 1138, 1144 (9th Cir. 2002).
Thus Perez’s will was not “overborne by the circumstances surrounding the giving
of a confession.” Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 434 (2000) (internal
quotation mark omitted).
2
Perez concedes that his contention that the district court erred in denying his
motion to dismiss the indictment is foreclosed by United States v. Hernandez-
Vermudez, 356 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2004).
AFFIRMED.
3