UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Fidencio ROMO-DE LA ROSA, also known as Juan Roma-De La Rosa, Defendant-Appellant, 463 F. App'x 239

PER CURIAM: Juan Fidencio Romo-De La Rosa challenges his eonditional-guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry following deportation, which resulted in a sentence of, inter alia, 46-months’ imprisonment. Romo maintains the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained when a police officer, after identifying Romo as a suspect in an attempted burglary, requested his name and date of birth. He claims this questioning violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination because he had not been advised of his rights under Miranda v.

Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). On appeal from denial of a motion to suppress, issues of law are reviewed de novo; findings of fact, for clear error, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. E.g., United States v. Montes, 602 F.3d 381, 384-85 (5th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Armijo v. United States, — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. 177, 178 L.Ed.2d 106 (2010). Assuming those findings are not clearly erroneous, whether the words or actions of law enforcement constituted “custodial interrogation” for Miranda purposes is reviewed de novo. E.g., United States v.

Chavira, 614 F.3d 127, 132 n. 7 (5th Cir.2010). There is no evidence the officer knew— or grounds for contending she should have known — that her requests for Romo’s name and date of birth were “reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response”. Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980). Moreover, evidence of Romo’s identity, such as his record as a deported felon, is not subject to suppression as “fruit of the poisonous tree”. E.g., United States v. Roque-Villanueva, 175 F.3d 345, 346 (5th Cir.1999).

In sum, Romo has failed to identify any evidence obtained by the officer’s questioning that is subject to suppression. AFFIRMED. Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.