Affirming convictions and vacating three defendants’ sentences imposed by the district court, the court of appeals, observing that a foreign national’s unfamiliarity with the United States’ form of justice is merely one factor to be considered in determining the validity of a Miranda waiver, held that defendants Labrada and Duarte knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived their Miranda rights. Labrada acknowledged that he understood what it meant to remain silent. There was no evidence that he had been threatened or made any promises. Considering the totality of circumstances, the waiver was voluntary. Further, there was sufficient evidence from which a rational jury could infer that Labrada had the requisite intent to distribute methamphetamine. Rejecting Labrada’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the panel held that Labrada could not show the requisite prejudice resulting from trial counsel’s failure to submit written objections to the presentence report, where the district court accepted and considered counsel’s oral objections.