United States v. Ranolfo Rios-Diaz

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 5, 2024
• Docket: 21-50062
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 5 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-50062

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos. 3:19-mj-23711-BGS-DMS-1 v. 3:19-mj-23711-BGS-DMS

RANOLFO RIOS-DIAZ, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Dana M. Sabraw, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 6, 2024** Pasadena, California

Before: WARDLAW, FRIEDLAND, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.

Ranolfo Rios-Diaz appeals the district court’s decision affirming the

magistrate judge’s denials of his motions to suppress his post-arrest statement and

to continue trial proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and

we affirm.

* 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). 1. The district court properly affirmed the magistrate judge’s denial of

Rios-Diaz’s motion to suppress his post-arrest statement. Relying on our decision

in United States v. San Juan-Cruz, 314 F.3d 384 (9th Cir. 2002), Rios-Diaz

contends that the warning that his asylum interview might be his only opportunity

to divulge any reasonable fear he had of returning to Mexico conflicted with his

right to remain silent, triggering the government’s duty to clarify his right to

remain silent. But this argument is foreclosed by our recent decision in United

States v. Gonzalez-Godinez, which addressed the same purported contradiction

Rios-Diaz describes here. 89 F.4th 1205, 1209 (9th Cir. 2024). Here, as in

Gonzalez-Godinez, “there was nothing misleading about the warnings [Rios-Diaz]

received.” Id. Unlike in San Juan-Cruz, the warnings Rios-Diaz received did not

contain conflicting statements about whether a lawyer would be provided at

government expense if he wanted one. Nor does Rios-Diaz suggest that he

otherwise faced confusing or coercive conditions. See id. at 1210. “[T]he

government was thus not required to clarify [Rios-Diaz’s] right to silence.” Id.

2. The district court properly affirmed the magistrate court’s denial of

Rios-Diaz’s continuance motion. “At a minimum,” Rios-Diaz “must show some

prejudice resulting from the court’s denial.” United States v. Kloehn, 620 F.3d

1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Armant v. Marquez, 772 F.2d 552, 556-57

(9th Cir. 1985)). Rios-Diaz does not identify any missteps by defense counsel or

2 any aspects of counsel’s performance that might have been altered if she had been

given more time to prepare. Thus, Rios-Diaz fails to articulate any prejudice

resulting from the denial.

AFFIRMED.