also the use of any evidence derived from those statements. See United States v. Boruff, 870 F.2d 316, 319 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 855, 110 S.Ct. 160, 107 L.Ed.2d 118 (1989). It appears, however, that the government would be permitted to use a defendant’s statements for impeachment purposes if he testifies at trial. See United States v. Smith, 940 F.2d 710, 713 (1st Cir.1991); United States v. Beltran-Gutierrez, 19 F.3d 1287, 1290 (9th Cir.1994); United States v. Quesada-Rosadal, 685 F.2d 1281, 1283 (11th Cir.1982). It also appears that such statements would be admissible at sentencing to determine the propriety of forfeiture, among other things. See United States v. Camacho, 779 F.2d 227, 231 (5th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1119,106 S.Ct. 1981, 90 L.Ed.2d 664 (1986) (<HOLDING>); Libretti v. United States, 516 U.S. 29,-, 116
holding representation at a suppression hearing by lawyer disbarred on final day of hearing not per se ineffective holding objection need not occur at suppression hearing holding appellant waived argument by failing to assert it at suppression hearing holding prosecutors withdrawal of standing objection at suppression hearing waived issue on appeal holding that statements made at a suppression hearing are under simmons admissible at sentencing