United States v. Ruiz-Rivera

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 12, 2025
• Docket: 23-3775
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 12 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 23-3775 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 3:20-mj-20306-AHG-WQH-1 v. MEMORANDUM* J. INES RUIZ-RIVERA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 4, 2025 Pasadena, California

Before: MILLER, LEE, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.

J. Ines Ruiz-Rivera appeals his misdemeanor conviction for attempted illegal

entry into the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325. He argues that the

magistrate judge erred in denying his motion to suppress his post-arrest confession.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

On appeal from a district court’s order affirming a misdemeanor conviction,

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. we review the magistrate judge’s decision directly, giving no deference to the

district court. See United States v. Stanton, 501 F.3d 1093, 1099–1101 (9th Cir.

2007). “We review the adequacy of Miranda warnings de novo.” United States v.

Gonzalez-Godinez, 89 F.4th 1205, 1208 (9th Cir. 2024). We review for clear error

a finding that a defendant’s waiver of his Miranda rights was knowing and

intelligent. Collazo v. Estelle, 940 F.2d 411, 416 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc).

We assume, without deciding, that Ruiz-Rivera’s post-arrest interrogation

violated Miranda v. Arizona because Ruiz-Rivera did not knowingly and

intelligently waive his rights. 384 U.S. 436 (1966); see United States v. Crews, 502

F.3d 1130, 1140 (9th Cir. 2007). Any error was harmless because even without the

statements made in that interrogation, “the evidence of guilt was overwhelming.”

United States v. Butler, 249 F.3d 1094, 1101 (9th Cir. 2001).

The border patrol agent who arrested Ruiz-Rivera testified that he found

Ruiz-Rivera laying down next to a shed at night. Ruiz-Rivera was 200 yards north

of the border and 25 miles from the nearest port of entry. He was wearing

“booties,” which the agent testified are worn to “disguise [the wearer’s] footprints

from pursuing border patrol agents.” Before his arrest, Ruiz-Rivera told the agent

that he was a Mexican citizen who was in the United States unlawfully. Because

Ruiz-Rivera’s pre-arrest statements and the circumstances of his arrest provided

overwhelming evidence of guilt, any error in admitting his post-arrest statements

2 23-3775 was harmless.

AFFIRMED.

3 23-3775