Appellant was given Miranda warnings prior to an interrogation, and waived those rights. He made several statements to police officers regarding his involvement in narcotics activity. The following day, the same officers continued the interrogation without giving repeated Miranda warnings. On appeal, appellant contended that the officers were required to readvise him of Miranda warnings before beginning the second day of questioning. The appellate court rejected the argument, finding that failure to readminister warnings on the second day did not automatically render any of the statements made that day inadmissable. The Supreme Court has rejected per se rules regarding readvisement of rights in favor of an approach focusing on the totality of the circumstances. Here, the district court found that the statements were close in time to the original advisement, appellant understood those rights, he was in custody between the two interrogations, and there were no intervening events. Further, appellant said that he remembered being advised of his rights the night before. There was no error in the district court’s factual findings.