MEMORANDUM ***

The government appeals the district court’s order suppressing Omar Qazi’s post-arrest statements upon finding that Qazi was given a deficient Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), warning. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3731, and we reverse.

Qazi argues that the Miranda warning was insufficient because it failed to inform him that he had a right to an attorney “before and during questioning” and that the statement given was merely the Miranda Court’s “summary,” not its holding. We review the sufficiency of a Miranda warning de novo. United States v. Loudous, 847 F.3d 1146, 1148-49 (9th Cir. 2017).

Miranda held that “the following measures are required”: “Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that ... he has a right to the presence of an attorney.” 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (emphasis added); see also id. at 478-79, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (reiterating similar language). Qazi was informed: “You have the right to the presence of an attorney.” “[W]e emphasize that while Supreme Court case law does not require a verbatim recitation of Miranda’s warnings, it does not proscribe it either.” Loucious, 847 F.3d at 1151 (emphasis added). Here, the Miranda warning given to Qazi was nearly verbatim to the language in Miranda, changing only the pronoun and the verb. Qazi was not given an insufficient Miranda warning.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.