Unpublished Disposition, 878 F.2d 387 (9th Cir. 1989)

MEMORANDUM^* 

Larry Jerome Braden (Braden) appeals from the judgment entered upon his conviction after a jury trial of three counts of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2112(a).

Prior to trial Braden made a motion to suppress incriminating statements he made to an FBI agent during a custodial interrogation. The motion was denied.

Braden argues that a person in custody, who has earlier exercised his right to remain silent, may not be questioned about the same crimes, notwithstanding fresh warnings as required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 467-473 (1975) and a waiver of the right to remain silent. Braden contends that admission of an incriminating statement under these circumstances violates Michigan v. Mosley, 123 U.S. 96 (1975). This precise contention has been rejected by several three-judge panels of this court. United States v. Hsu, 852 F.2d 407, 412 (9th Cir. 1988); Grooms v. Keeney, 826 F.2d 883, 886 (9th Cir. 1987); United States v. Heldt, 745 F.2d 1272, 1278 n. 5 (9th Cir. 1984).

Braden asks this panel to reject these holdings. A three-judge panel is bound by the decisions of other three-judge panels of this court unless such prior authority has been disapproved by this court sitting en banc, is no longer viable because of a contrary ruling in a subsequent Supreme Court opinion, or has been nullified by congressional action. Montana v. Johnson, 738 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1984).

The Supreme Court has not issued any opinion subsequent to our decisions in Hsu, Grooms, Heldt that would permit this panel to revisit the issue decided in those cases. Congress has not nullified these decisions. Accordingly, we are bound by the law of the circuit.

AFFIRMED.