Whether Miranda v. Arizona is satisfied when a suspect in custody is advised of the right to an attorney but not explicitly advised of the right to the attorney's presence during interrogation

QUESTION PRESENTED Should this Court grant certiorari to resolve the split in the United States Courts of Appeals and the state appellate courts regarding whether Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), is satisfied when a suspect in custody is advised at the beginning of an interrogation that they have the right to an attorney, but is not explicitly advised that they are entitled to the attorneys presence before and _ during interrogation?