
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeronimo BOTELLO-ROSALES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-30069.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted July 14, 2011.
    Filed Aug. 30, 2011.
    Leah K. Bolstad, Assistant U.S., Jennifer Jane Martin, Assistant U.S., Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
    Michael Robert Levine, Law Office of Michael R. Levine, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: PREGERSON, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Jeronimo Botello-Rosales appeals his conviction of conspiracy to manufacture marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and possession of a firearm by a person unlawfully in the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we remand to the district court for a new evidentiary hearing.

Botello entered a guilty plea following the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress statements he gave law enforcement officers. Botello argues that the district court erred in denying the suppression motion because the police officer violated Miranda v. Arizona, 884 U.S. 486, 478, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), by preceding his interrogations with a mistranslated Spanish-language warning that failed to convey the government’s obligation to appoint counsel for indigent defendants. An officer translated the warning into Spanish from memory, the interrogation was not recorded, and no Spanish-certified court reporter was present at the suppression hearing, which itself was not recorded. Therefore, where the officer testified about what he remembered saying to Botello, the record states simply: “(The answer is then given in Spanish.)”

To determine the adequacy of a Miranda warning, we must examine the words used to determine if “the warnings reasonably ‘conve[y] to [a suspect] his rights as required by Miranda.’ Florida v. Powell, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1195, 1204, 175 L.Ed.2d 1009 (2010) (alterations in original) (quoting Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195, 203, 109 S.Ct. 2875, 106 L.Ed.2d 166 (1989)). Our case law in this area makes clear that, at a minimum, this inquiry requires a finding of fact as to what was actually said. See Doody v. Ryan, 649 F.3d 986, 991, 1002-03, 2011 WL 1663551 at *2, *13 (9th Cir.2011); id. at 1025-29, 2011 WL 1663551 at *35-*39 (Kozinski, C.J., concurring in the judgment); United States v. Perez-Lopez, 348 F.3d 839, 842, 848 (9th Cir.2003); United States v. San Juan-Cruz, 314 F.3d 384, 386-87, 389 (9th Cir.2002); United States v. Connell, 869 F.2d 1349, 1350-51, 1352 (9th Cir.1989).

As there is insufficient record evidence to determine whether police adequately administered the Miranda warning, we REMAND this case to the district court for additional fact-finding as to the content of the Spanish-language warning administered to Botello, and whether the words used adequately conveyed to Botello his Miranda rights.

REMANDED 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     