Opinion
No. 06-50405.
Argued and Submitted June 6, 2007 Pasadena, California.
July 26, 2007.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California John S. Rhoades, District Judge, Presiding, D.C. No. CR-06-01082-R.
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
On appeal, Juvenile challenges the certification filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 5032. Juvenile also contends that there were multiple violations of 18 U.S.C. § 5033 of the Juvenile Delinquency Act, which resulted in a violation of due process, or in the alternative, prejudicial error. Additionally, Juvenile contends that his statements should be suppressed due to Miranda violations.
Because the parties agree that this case involves the accuracy of the certification rather than its sufficiency to bestow jurisdiction upon the federal court, United States v. Gonzalez-Cervantes, 668 F.2d 1073 (9th Cir. 1981) governs. In Gonzalez-Cervantes, we held that accuracy of the certification is not jurisdictional. Id. at 1077. In that circumstance we "refuse to elevate form over substance." United States v. Doe, 170 F.3d 1162, 1165 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). Therefore, the declination of the District Attorney to prosecute violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324 satisfied the certification requirement. See United States v. Indian Boy X, 565 F.2d 585, 589 n. 10 (9th Cir. 1977) (so holding).
Juvenile was in custody for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 5033 at approximately 3:00 a.m. on May 19, 2006, when he was implicated as a potential alien smuggler. See United States v. Doe, 155 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc) (holding "that a federal arrest on a federal charge is a necessary prerequisite to the statute's application") (citation omitted). Thereafter, the agents immediately advised Juvenile of his Miranda rights in language comprehensible to a juvenile, immediately notified Juvenile's parent, and brought Juvenile before a magistrate judge forthwith. Although the agents failed to notify the Attorney General immediately of Juvenile's custody, no due process violation ensued. See United States v. Juvenile (RRA-A), 229 F.3d 737, 746 (9th Cir. 2000) (stating that the government conduct must be "so egregious that it deprived [Juvenile] of due process of law") (citation omitted). Moreover, there is no suggestion that failure to notify the Attorney General led Juvenile to confess. See United States v. Doe, 219 F.3d 1009, 1017 (9th Cir. 2000) ("Only if the violation was a cause of the confession does a court look to the prejudice caused by the confession.") (citation omitted).
Contrary to Juvenile's assertion, the first interrogation at approximately 11:23 p.m. on May 18, 2006 did not require Miranda warnings because Juvenile was being held as a material witness. See United States v. Anfield, 539 F.2d 674, 677 (9th Cir. 1976) ("The custody of [a person] as a material witness was not of the type requiring Miranda warnings.") (citation omitted). Juvenile waived his Miranda rights for the second interrogation that occurred at approximately 11:50 a.m. on May 19, 2006. See United States v. Rodriguez-Preciado, 399 F.3d 1118, 1127 (9th Cir. 2005) (discussing waiver of Miranda rights).
AFFIRMED.