United States of America v. Ranolfo Rios-Diaz

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RANOLFO RIOS-DIAZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 21-50062
D.C. Nos.
3:19-mj-23711-BGS-DMS-1
3:19-mj-23711-BGS-DMS
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
MAR 5 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

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 of 3 --

3
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.

-- 3 of 3 --