United States v. Leland Nielsen, III, 640 F. App'x 224

In May 2013 FBI agents investigated allegations by 12-year-old B.R. that her uncle, Leland Nielsen, III, sexually abused her at the family home on Fort Jackson.
Agents, with family consent, had Nielsen summoned to the house by a relative under a false pretext; agents spoke with him outside his residence from ~8:00 p.m. until ~11:00 p.m. before arresting him.
Multiple agents (5–6 on scene; no more than three questioning at once) questioned Nielsen without Miranda warnings; he was not handcuffed, could move about, and was not told he was free to leave.
Nielsen ultimately admitted to various sexual acts; he said PTSD and medication partially explained his conduct.
Indictment charged four counts of aggravated sexual abuse by force (18 U.S.C. § 2241(a),(c)) and four counts of sexual abuse of a minor (18 U.S.C. § 2243(a)) based on the same incidents.
District court denied Nielsen’s suppression motion, convicted him on all eight counts, and sentenced him to concurrent life terms on the § 2241 counts and concurrent 15-year terms on the § 2243 counts. On appeal, suppression denial was affirmed but four § 2243 convictions were vacated as multiplicitous.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether statements made during the ~3-hour interview at Nielsen’s home should be suppressed under Miranda because of custodial interrogation	Nielsen: Interview was custodial (isolated, multiple agents, long duration, not told he could leave) so Miranda warnings required	Government: Objective totality shows no custody (home setting, no restraints, agents empathetic, no weapons displayed, ability to move) so Miranda not required	Court: Not custodial under objective test; Miranda warnings not required and suppression denied
Whether Nielsen’s convictions on § 2243 (sexual abuse of a minor) are multiplicitous given concurrent § 2241 convictions (aggravated sexual abuse by force)	Nielsen: The jury instruction on force effectively collapses § 2241 and § 2243; separate convictions impermissibly impose cumulative punishment	Government: Congress intended separate punishments; statutes distinguishable	Court: § 2243 is a lesser included offense of § 2241 (Blockburger and Alleyne implications); convictions on § 2243 (Counts 2,4,6,8) are multiplicitous and must be vacated; remedy is vacatur of lesser counts and amended judgment

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (established custodial-interrogation warnings requirement)
Hashime v. United States, 734 F.3d 278 (4th Cir. 2013) (totality-of-circumstances custody analysis)
Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (Miranda custody standard and ‘‘freedom of movement’' test)
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (test for whether two statutory offenses are the same for double jeopardy)
Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 (lesser included offense and double jeopardy prohibition on cumulative punishment)
Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (elements that increase mandatory minimums must be submitted to jury)
United States v. Colton, 231 F.3d 890 (no prejudice from multiplicitous charging when same evidence proves both counts)