United States v. Juan Valenzuela-Sanchez , 669 F. App'x 419 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
SEP 30 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-50136
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:14-cr-02120-L-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JUAN MANUEL VALENZUELA-
SANCHEZ, AKA Miguel Angel
Contreras,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
M. James Lorenz, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted September 1, 2016
Pasadena, California
Before: TASHIMA, WARDLAW, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Juan Manuel Valenzuela-Sanchez (Valenzuela) appeals his conviction under
8 U.S.C. § 1326 for illegal reentry. He challenges the admission of the statement he
gave to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent during a 2011
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
interview because he was not given a Miranda warning beforehand. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The district court did not err in admitting Valenzuela’s statement at trial.
Valenzuela contends that non-Mirandized statements during custodial immigration
questioning must be categorically excluded. We disagree. Valenzuela cites no
authority generally requiring such warnings; nor can we find any such authority.
Furthermore, such a rule would assume that every person detained and questioned
by an immigration agent intends to commit an immigration-related crime in the
future. This assumption runs counter to the fact-specific inquiry required for
determining whether a Miranda warning is necessary: whether “under all the
circumstances involved in a given case, the questions are ‘reasonably likely to
elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.’” United States v. Booth, 669
F.2d 1231, 1237 (9th Cir. 1981) (quoting Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301
(1980)).
Moreover, considering the specific circumstances of Valenzuela’s 2011
detention and interview, we conclude that the questions were not reasonably likely
to elicit an incriminating response. An ICE agent interviewed Valenzuela in
connection with reinstatement of a prior removal order, and Valenzuela was
immediately removed to Mexico thereafter. At the time, he was neither targeted in
2
a criminal investigation of his entry into the United States nor charged with an
immigration-related crime. See United States v. Chen, 439 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th
Cir. 2006); United States v. Mata-Abundiz, 717 F.2d 1277, 1279 (9th Cir. 1983).
Therefore, the ICE agent was not required to provide Valenzuela with a Miranda
warning, and his statement during the 2011 interview was properly admitted.
AFFIRMED.
3