469, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966)). Mir’s equivocal answer falls far short of being “clearcut” and therefore does not constitute the “unambiguous invocation” that would require custodial officers to cease questioning. Accordingly, although Mir did not expressly waive his right to remain silent at the outset of the interrogation, he implicitly waived that right by continuing to answer the FBI Agents’ questions. Mir’s signing the waiver of rights form at the end of the interrogation, rather than at the beginning, also does not mandate the suppression of Mir’s statements. It is sufficient that Mir was read his rights, and stated that he understood them, at the outset of the interview. See In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in E. Africa, 552 F.3d 177, 209 (2d Cir. 2008) (<HOLDING>). III. ORDER For the reasons stated above, it
holding that whether waiver form satisfied miranda was immaterial because of the adequacy of the subsequent oral warning holding that the failure to sign a miranda form in full does not necessarily invalidate the waiver holding that although defendants voluntarily given initial statement was inadmissible because of miranda violation subsequent statement made after careful miranda warnings were given and waiver was obtained was admissible holding officers failure to obtain a written waiver from defendant did not render his oral waiver or subsequent confession involuntary holding that the warnings in their totality satisfied miranda