in Booker, the district court concluded the Guidelines were advisory and sentenced Peters to 72 months’ imprisonment followed by 3 years of supervised release and ordered restitution in the amount of $18,787.29. Alternatively, the district court imposed a mandatory sentence of 110 month imprisonment pursuant to the Guidelines. The Supreme Court subsequently affirmed Booker, 125 S.Ct. at 746, which nullified the 110-month sentence mandated by the Guidelines. On appeal, Peters seeks to overturn his conviction and obtain a new trial for two reasons: first, the district court should have granted his motion to suppress his confession because he had invoked his right to an attorney; and second, the sentencing allegations in the indictment and jury instructions constituted plain error. 96) (<HOLDING>); Flamer v. Delaware, 68 F.3d 710, 725 (3d
holding do you think i need a lawyer to be ambiguous holding maybe i should talk to a lawyer to be ambiguous holding that if you do not qualify under the hup test you never get to the statute holding that a suspect made an acceptable request for counsel by stating i dont think i want to talk to you anymore without a lawyer holding that appellants statement i think i need a lawyer     is just as ambiguous as the statement made by the defendant in davis