United States v. Omar Qazi , 713 F. App'x 691 ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    FEB 26 2018
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No.   17-10004
    Plaintiff-Appellant,               D.C. No.
    2:15-cr-00014-APG-VCF-1
    v.
    OMAR QAZI,                                       MEMORANDUM*
    Defendant-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Nevada
    Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted February 16, 2018**
    San Francisco, California
    Before: BEA and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and LASNIK,*** District Judge.
    The government appeals the district court’s order suppressing Omar Qazi’s
    post-arrest statements upon finding that Qazi was given a deficient Miranda v.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    ***
    The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, United States District Judge for the
    Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.
    Arizona, 
    384 U.S. 436
     (1966), warning. We have jurisdiction under 
    18 U.S.C. § 3731
    , and we reverse.
    Qazi argues that the Miranda warning was insufficient because it failed to
    inform him that he had a right to an attorney “before and during questioning” and
    that the statement given was merely the Miranda Court’s “summary,” not its
    holding. We review the sufficiency of a Miranda warning de novo. United States v.
    Loucious, 
    847 F.3d 1146
    , 1148-49 (9th Cir. 2017).
    Miranda held that “the following measures are required”: “Prior to any
    questioning, the person must be warned that . . . he has a right to the presence of
    an attorney.” 
    384 U.S. at 444
     (emphasis added); see also 
    id. at 478-79
     (reiterating
    similar language). Qazi was informed: “You have the right to the presence of an
    attorney.” “[W]e emphasize that while Supreme Court case law does not require a
    verbatim recitation of Miranda’s warnings, it does not proscribe it either.”
    Loucious, 847 F.3d at 1151 (emphasis added). Here, the Miranda warning given to
    Qazi was nearly verbatim to the language in Miranda, changing only the pronoun
    and the verb. Qazi was not given an insufficient Miranda warning.
    REVERSED AND REMANDED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-10004

Citation Numbers: 713 F. App'x 691

Filed Date: 2/26/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023