at 640. Regarding Smith's Fifth Amendment claim, we first note that no part of Smith's affidavit establishes the facts relevant to determining whether a Fifth Amendment violation occurred. And Smith's entire Fifth Amendment assertion is as follows: "Once Smith told the Detectives [sic] he had counsel and did not think he should sign the waiver of rights without first talking with counsel that should have ended the interview[.] See Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 LEd.2d 378 (1981)." Brief of Appellant at 28. Even accepting Smith's factual allegations as true, he has not shown that he unambiguously requested the presence of counsel during the interview with Detective Stonebraker. See Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 459, 114 S.Ct. 2350, 129 L.Ed.2d 362 (1994) (<HOLDING>). Again, Smith has not shown that a motion to
holding that the interrogation must cease once the suspect invokes his miranda right to counsel holding suspect must unambiguously request counsel before applying rule established in edwards that police questioning must cease once suspect requests counsel during interview holding that unless suspect clearly requests counsel police do not have to halt questioning holding that interrogation must cease if the suspect unambiguously asserts his right to counsel holding that a suspect must unambiguously request counsel