provisions of § 3501(c) are subject to the voluntariness test in § 3501(a) and (b). Id. at 219 n. 6 (citing Gov’t of the V.I. v. Gereau, 502 F.2d 914, 924 (3d Cir.1974)). The court stated that the Supreme Court’s opinion in Dickerson held that § 3501 was without effect “ to the extent that it could be read as overruling Miranda.” Id. at 210. 4 . Some circuits have held that there is no duty to hold a hearing on the voluntariness of a confession absent an objection by the defendant. See United States v. Wilson, 895 F.2d 168, 172-73 (4th Cir.1990) (finding no requirement for court to hold hearing under § 3501(a) without an objection, but noting that the evidence did not compel the conclusion that the confession was involuntary); United States v. Hart, 729 F.2d 662, 666 (10th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). We are, of course, bound by our own
holding that an issue not presented to the trial court will not be considered on appeal holding that the issue of the voluntariness of a settlement agreement is waived on appeal if not raised before the board holding that the evidence raised the issue of voluntariness of consent even though the officers comments were in response to an inquiry by the suspect holding that because defendant did not raise a newly discovered evidence claim or amend his postconviction motion after the evidentiary hearing the issue was not timely presented to the trial court and was not cognizable on appeal holding that the trial court need not hold a voluntariness hearing where the defendant did not object and no evidence presented raised the issue