discussed Cited "see" United States v. Rojas Tapia The report further notes that Rojas-Tapia’s “understanding of the legal process should not be assumed,” then recommends that Rojas-Tapia be permitted “regularly” to consult with his attorney at trial, and be required “to restate information in his own words to ensure an adequate level of understanding.” The waiver inquiry ultimately turns not upon any one factor, but upon all the attendant circumstances, see Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 285 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991), including “both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation,…