appeal, Delarosa does not challenge this determination. 9 . Angel Rodriguez argues on appeal that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress his confession. We disagree. A. Rodriguez argued at his suppression hearing that he was physically assaulted by police officers and was coerced into giving a statement without receiving a Miranda warning, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Judge Duffy rejected these claims, referring to them as a "tissue of lies." Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the district court’s factual findings with respect to the voluntariness of A. Rodriguez's statement and the adequacy of the Miranda warnings were not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Khalil, 214 F.3d 111, 122 (2d Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). 10 . Vazquez Baez does not challenge his
holding that the district courts good faith finding is reviewed for clear error holding that district courts factual findings for purposes of obstruction enhancement are reviewed for clear error holding that a district courts determination as to the applicability of a privilege is reviewed for clear error holding that findings of fact are reviewed for clear error holding that the district courts credibility assessments are entitled to deference and reviewed for clear error