Motion to suppress police statements; Waiver of Miranda rights; Moran v Burbine; Right to counsel; Denial of request for new counsel; Alleged discovery violation under FedRCrimP 16(a)(1)(F); Hobbs Act jury instructions; Plain error review; United States v Olano; Sentencing; “Physical restraint” enhancement (USSG § 2B3.1(b)(4)(B)); United States v Taylor (2nd Cir); “Bodily injury” enhancement (§ 2B3.1(b)(3)); “Criminal history” calculation; Whether defendant was entitled to resentencing

The court held that defendant-Daniels knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his request for new counsel. It also found that even “if the government violated Rule 16, Daniels” did not show the district court abused its discretion in refusing to suppress a detective’s testimony. There was no plain error in the Hobbs Act jury instructions, and the court rejected his sentencing challenges, including to the district court’s application of the § 2B3.1 “physical restraint” enhancement. A jury convicted him of Hobbs Act robbery and firearm offenses. He was sentenced to 181 months. On appeal, he first argued that the statements he made after being arrested should be suppressed because he never waived his right to remain silent. But the court noted that there were no signs of coercion or deception, and when police handed him a list of his rights, he said that “he understood ‘the whole process.’” It also rejected his claim that he was denied his right to counsel where he failed to establish “good cause” for appointment of a new attorney, noting that he made his request just 10 days before trial and it was not received until 5 days before trial. Further, the district court conducted a sufficient investigation into the motion. His claim as to a discovery violation failed where the district court provided a continuance instead of suppression and Daniels showed no bad faith or prejudice. The court also found no merit to his challenge to the district court’s jury instructions on Hobbs Act robbery where he failed to object below and he could not show an obvious error under the court’s “existing cases interpreting the Hobbs Act.” It acknowledged inconsistent case law as to whether an “actual effect” on interstate commerce was required but found that this inconsistency foreclosed his claim on plain-error review. As to his sentencing, the court upheld the enhancement for “physical restraint” based on his pointing a gun at employees, limiting their movement. It considered the Second Circuit’s decision in Taylor that applied a “narrower reading of” the term, and the Sentencing Commission’s change to § 2B3.1(b)(4)(B) that follows Taylor “and requires ‘physical contact or confinement’ for the enhancement.” But noting that the Commission has not yet decided whether the change will apply retroactively, the court opted to continue to follow its current precedent here. It also upheld the “bodily injury” enhancement where Daniels sprayed mace directly in the employees’ faces. Finally, it found that he was not entitled to relief related to the district court’s calculations of his criminal-history score. Affirmed.