UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco CASILLAS, Defendant-Appellant, 538 F. App'x 751

MEMORANDUM Francisco Casillas appeals his conviction for importing marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and now reverse and remand for a new trial. Casillas argues that the district court should have suppressed his post-arrest statements because the interrogating ICE agents continued questioning him after he unambiguously invoked his right to remain silent multiple times; the agents failed to .adequately advise him of his Miranda rights; he did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive his Miranda rights; and his confession was not voluntary.

Without reaching any of the claimed Miranda violations, we conclude that Casil-las’s confession was not voluntary under our clear precedent. Brown v. Horell, 644 F.3d 969, 979 (9th Cir.2011). Right after Casillas signed the Miranda waiver form, Officer David Sanchez told him: “Because if you don’t want to cooperate, you don’t want to talk, you don’t want—no, well, they’re going to say, ‘This man doesn’t have—is not sorry about anything. Throw the—the—the—the book at him.’ Right?” We have repeatedly found that a threat of harsher treatment renders any subsequent confession involuntary. United States v.

Harrison, 34 F.3d 886, 890-92 (9th Cir.1994); Collazo v. Estelle, 940 F.2d 411, 416-22 (9th Cir.1991) (en banc); United States v. Tingle, 658 F.2d 1332, 1335-37 (9th Cir.1981). In Harrison, we held a confession was involuntary where an agent had informed the suspect that she might be facing up to 20 years in prison and threatened that he would inform the judge that she refused to cooperate. 34 F.3d at 890.

We stated that “there are no circumstances in which law enforcement officers may suggest that a suspect’s exercise of the right to remain silent may result in harsher treatment by a court or prosecutor.” Id. at 891-92. Casillas’s statement was an integral part of the government’s case. Its use cannot be deemed harmless, and the government does not contend otherwise. REVERSED and REMANDED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.