The question presented by this appeal is whether a confession made by appellant to an FBI agent (after full Miranda warnings and a written waiver of the Fifth Amendment privilege) was involuntary. During trial to the court without a jury a full hearing was afforded on this contention and the court’s conclusion was that the confession was voluntary. Our own review of the record confirms this determination. Davis v. North Carolina, 384 U.S, 737, 741-742, 86 S.Ct. 1761, 16 L.Ed.2d 895 (1962).
The confession is attacked upon two grounds:
1. That it was given while appellant was under the influence of a tranquilizer, Thorazine, administered to him three and one half days earlier when he was undergoing withdrawal from heroin. There is nothing in the record to suggest that at the time of his confession the effects of the drug continued to any extent at all, to say nothing of a suggestion that they were such as to undermine his will or affect his understanding.1
2. That the confession was tainted by the fact that four days earlier appellant had given a confession to a state officer and that the state confession was involuntary since, at the time, he was suffering withdrawal from heroin.
We note first that the record shows that no withdrawal symptom manifested itself until after the confession was given.
Furthermore, appellant’s reliance upon Westover v. United States, sub nom. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), is misplaced. Here the interrogation by the FBI was separated in time and place from the state interrogation. Any coercive taint attaching to the state interro*363gation was effectively dispelled.2 Any tendency (less than coercion) that the earlier confession may have had to induce appellant to forego his Fifth Amendment privilege was fairly offset by the giving of the Miranda warnings.
Judgment affirmed.