1035 (9th Cir.1998), as amended, 166 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir.1999) (stating that violation of § 5033 of Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act may, upon a showing of prejudice, justify limited remedies such as suppression, even though statutory violation does not deny due process), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 106, 145 L.Ed.2d 89 (1999); United States v. Van Poyck, 77 F.3d 285, 288 (9th Cir.1996) (noting that incriminating statements obtained in violation of Fed.R.Crim.P. 5(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 3501(c) may be excluded by the court’s discretion); United States v. Soto-Soto, 598 F.2d 545, 550 (9th Cir.1979) ("Statutory law was disregarded. Exclusion of the evidence seized is the only available effective deterrent of such disregard.”); cf. United States v. Doe, 862 F.2d 776, 780-81 (9th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Gatto, 763 F.2d 1040, 1046
holding that failure to explain allegations and possible consequences was fundamental error that required reversal even though the juvenile had not raised this in his brief holding that failure to give explanation of allegations required reversal holding that reversal of conviction is required if alien defendant was prejudiced by governments failure to contact his parents and mexican consulate as required by federal juvenile delinquency act holding that the juvenile courts alleged failure to approve by written order the filing of a delinquency petition was a procedural error and not a jurisdictional one and thus could not be attacked collaterally holding that no federal nexus is required