Minnick, 498 U.S. at 150, 111 S.Ct. 486; Butler v. McKellar, 494 U.S. 407, 420, 110 S.Ct. 1212, 108 L.Ed.2d 347 (1990) (Brennan, J., dissenting in part); Patterson, 487 U.S. at 291, 108 S.Ct. 2389; Roberson, 486 U.S. at 680-81, 108 S.Ct. 2093; Mauro, 481 U.S. at 526, 107 S.Ct. 1931 (1987); Connecticut v. Barrett, 479 U.S. 523, 535, 107 S.Ct. 828, 93 L.Ed.2d 920 (1987) (Brennan, J., concurring in the judgment); Watkin d.2d 185 (2012); Savino v. Murray, 82 F.3d 593, 599-600 (4th Cir.1996) (stating that a "defendant who ends police-initiated interrogation by requesting counsel, then specifically calls for an officer with whom to talk about the incident in question, has reinitiated further conversation for Edwards purposes”); United States v. Velasquez, 885 F.2d 1076, 1085-86 (3d Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>)', McCree v. Housewright, 689 F.2d 797, 802
holding no error where the court initially granted 500 for an investigator and defendant made no subsequent request for additional funds holding that the plaintiffs evidence of pretext which included but was not limited to her supervisors statement that she had enough of the plaintiff going to her supervisor about her was not sufficient to preclude summary judgment holding that once the defendant has submitted to the control of the officer and the process of taking him or her to the police station  has commenced his or her arrest is complete and he or she is in custody for the purposes of the escape statute holding that defendant adequately indicated to officers that she sought assistance of counsel when she stated that she wanted to call her lawyer and officer testified that request was unambiguous holding that following her invocation of counsel mrs velasquezs request to police officer to get federal investigator because she wanted to speak with him her subsequent question to the federal investigator what is going to happen initiated the conversation and satisfied first step in bradshaw