United States v. James Stallans

895 F.2d 809, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 2252, 1990 WL 13092
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedFebruary 13, 1990
Docket89-3001
StatusUnpublished

This text of 895 F.2d 809 (United States v. James Stallans) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. James Stallans, 895 F.2d 809, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 2252, 1990 WL 13092 (D.C. Cir. 1990).

Opinion

895 F.2d 809

282 U.S.App.D.C. 404

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: D.C. Circuit Local Rule 11(c) states that unpublished orders, judgments, and explanatory memoranda may not be cited as precedents, but counsel may refer to unpublished dispositions when the binding or preclusive effect of the disposition, rather than its quality as precedent, is relevant.
UNITED STATES of America
v.
James STALLANS, Appellant.

No. 89-3001.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Feb. 13, 1990.

Before BUCKLEY, D.H. GINSBURG and SENTELLE, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to this court's order of January 4, 1990 granting the joint motion to decide this case under Rule 13(i) of the General Rules of this court, this appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs of counsel. After full review of the case, the court has determined that appropriate disposition of the appeal does not warrant an opinion. See D.C.Cir.R. 14(c).

Defendant-appellant Stallans appeals from the district court's denial of his motion to suppress oral statements he made to a criminal investigator from the Treasury Department on the grounds that the investigator failed to give him Miranda warnings prior to questioning. As it is clear from the record that Stallans voluntarily participated in the interviews in which he made the statements at issue, and as he was not in custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action when he made the statements, we hold that the district court properly denied Stallans' motion to suppress. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966). It is therefore

ORDERED and ADJUDGED by this court that Stallans' conviction on two counts of uttering and two counts of receipt and concealment of U.S. Treasury checks bearing false endorsements, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 510(a)(2), (b) & (c), be affirmed.

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C.Cir. Rule 15.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436 (Supreme Court, 1966)
United States v. Davis (Dwight I.)
895 F.2d 809 (D.C. Circuit, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
895 F.2d 809, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 2252, 1990 WL 13092, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-james-stallans-cadc-1990.