United States v. Ronald Harris ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 18 2011
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. 10-10434
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00223-GMN-
LRL-1
v.
RONALD DAIN HARRIS, MEMORANDUM *
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 14, 2011 **
San Francisco, California
Before: SILVERMAN and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and LYNN, District
Judge.***
Ronald Harris appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress an
admission supporting his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm in
*
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).
***
The Honorable Barbara M. G. Lynn, United States District Judge for
the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We review the district court’s denial of the
motion to suppress de novo. The district court’s factual findings, including the
finding that the waiver was knowing and intelligent, are reviewed for clear error.
United States v. Rodriguez-Rodriguez, 393 F.3d 849, 855 (9th Cir. 2005). We
affirm.
Contrary to Harris’s assertion, the district court considered the totality of the
circumstances to determine whether Harris voluntarily and knowingly waived his
right to remain silent. The district court did not err in applying United States v.
George, 987 F.2d 1428, 1431 (9th Cir. 1993).
The district court did not clearly err in finding that Harris was not too
intoxicated to knowingly waive his right to remain silent. Despite his intoxication,
Harris was coherent and responsive to questions and directions. Id. Harris
cooperated, followed orders, and answered questions, providing his name, social
security number, date of birth, the date of his release from prison, the nature of his
prior conviction, and the length of his sentence. Harris offered to prove his
identity with a bank card and his mother’s maiden name. Just before the officer
read Harris his Miranda rights, Harris again responded to questions and followed
directions. Harris walked out of the security office without assistance. The officer
2
testified that Harris was awake, appeared to understand his rights, and responded
“yes” when asked if he understood his rights.
Nor did the district court err in holding that the waiver was voluntary. There
is no evidence in the record that officers intimidated, coerced, or deceived Harris.
Cox v. Del Papa, 542 F.3d 669, 675 (9th Cir. 2008) (noting that voluntariness
depends on police overreaching and knowledge depends on mental capacity).
Finally, the magistrate judge did not usurp the prosecutor’s role by asking
non-leading questions of the government’s witness at the evidentiary hearing. The
magistrate judge had broad discretion to question the witness and did not exhibit
any bias. United States v. Alfaro, 336 F.3d 876, 883-84 (9th Cir. 2003).
AFFIRMED.
3