only case number one eight dash five one three six the united states of america versus edgar the i trust an ada oral argument not to exceed fifteen minutes per side mr allen for the appellant good morning it please the court recorded in violation of d o j policy at the time were did not the fact that it violates the policy is that grounds to suppress it no you're in fact you know what it what does it matter that in your eyes your honor in our brief we do note that and we don't argue that is creates a substantive ground for relief but it is it was a factor that we started the court for his consideration in the totality of their circumstance it's a factor of whether he understood english i mean what as a factor is to the totality of circumstances as to the the whole context of the interview and i they don't they don't you know claim it's coercive to you your honor i would think recording it probably is most valuable as evidence of whether it was coercive or not the way questions were asked the manner that they were asked but whether they are ok i mean just provide i understand the question and i think the crux of this case and what it centered on didn't understand giving is lamb is language difficulties is understanding the english language in the context of this interview do the truly understand the warnings that were given to him obviously f b i agents asserted that he direct coercion of mr via to sign the statement he did testify during the suppression hearing that he did not understand the written or oral warnings given to him and that he signed it when the agents insisted that he did so and that fact in which we we noted for the court to consider the district court to consider was a factor we believe that was relevant in the under the totality serves our understanding thank you thank you the issue is understanding what do we do with the record evidence to show that he spoke english with cellmates with staff former job in a restaurant where he read english recording showed he spoke english and responded in english looking officer testified that the defendant understood what he was saying where is the record evidence other video of the audio tape from the van to the courthouse was of such poor quality that no one can understand the court government could understand exactly what was being said gregg but we could argue that it was clear that it was that was being spoken we could smoke surmise that the two were speaking english yes but as we noted in our brief i believe there is a difference between mr v a testified that he learned rudimentary english working in the united states i believe there is a difference between being able to have a rudimentary understanding of english in the again i go back to he may have been able to converse with her about basic things which again is consistent with what he says to fight in the suppression hearing that he worked in the restaurant business he was able to understand rudimentary english did he in fact understand what was being said to him in the in the contact your client have any prior experience with the justice system he did your honor oh he's been through this before he's been through the justice system for it wouldn't that give him a little understanding of what the english words mean that he's he's been this route before well again and i think if the district court noted that the record was that in each of those instances he utilize an interpreter and while that's that's certainly not outcome determinative and only has a target or a cork but he hasn't had it i mean this is this is outside of court right record it always have an interpreter outside of the court when he had these other charges i don't believe the record reflects that your  evidence as as to that so that would be the distinction i would draw all there is to to what level of comprehension did he have to understand the warnings in this context when your client was in the country or something in english so and the government but put forth a little evidence of that i believe there's some some evidence of a medical questionnaire at the wood for county detention center but outside of that his his testimony show one the the ages and that test in that case testified that they knew the defendant had resided in the united states for twelve years in this case and i believe the agents testify that they knew how long mr had reside in the united states at all i believe the testimony came out there was criminal record as to how when he may or may not when he may have been in the united states been out showing the agents definitely knew he had been in the united states for twelve years more importantly it's part of his now he was a naturalized u s citizen as part of that naturalization process to record the agents testified they had they had evidence and knew that he had passed a naturalization exam an english proficiency exam and it sworn under penalty of perjury that he could speak english in addition they introduced in that case recorded conversations between mr al showmen and the f b i agent where they were clearly conversing in english i would argue  probably and where he admitted to the f b i off to the f b i agent he could speak in english and on those bases i would argue that the with the the knowledge base of the f b i agents in that in that case they clearly knew that the that mr  n spoke english you had a statement under oath your imagination process that he spoke english none of none of which we have here and in the outshone case i understand as a district court noted that the discourse must look at it from the perspective of the police officers and i would argue here for the grounds i said that i'd just explain to the court that that this case was distinguished from out from  individual a did the agents individually explain each of his rights to him in a manner you could understand agent whitehead testified to in the suppression hearing that they read through his miranda warnings only one time that they utilized in the english version of the miranda form even though they ha not individually explain each right and that's different than not reading them but i don't mean to suggest that they didn't read the rise to me thank you and the third factor is the agents testify they did not use well utilize a translator during the interrogation even though one was readily available which would be consistent with their belief they could be understood what they were saying i didn't understand judge your  you know they they knew in that instance that they should have used to translate well is there any indication that the officers realize that he was having communication difficulties that there was there was something that led the officers or alerted them that he might not understand you know the agents testified that they believed that he could speak english and they had he did understand i mean they that was their testimony in the suppression hearing did he say or did he testify that it was obvious to him that they they realized he didn't understand i mean he said he didn't know but i'm now now look at the officers perspective that did he say that i something i said i could tell i alerted the officers that they knew i didn't understand that mr  i believe in the record he did testify that that he said that he did could not understand the war no i don't look at their perspective that he said i could tell they didn't understand but they proceeded anyway or you know anything like that i'm not aware of any testimony from from the agents or him or your client you know the all of the mr via testified that he he indicated to the officers the agents that he couldn't understand what they're saying and again this is this really is testimony and according to mr via they insisted that  it's our it's our research into the district court abused its discretion in imposing what effectively amounted to a life sentence and that's because again we do not object to the actual guidelines calculations but merely to his discretion and running both the sentences on both counts consecutive to each other and also consecutive to his eighteen years and you agree the sentences are within the guidelines and therefore presumptively reasonable and you also recognize that the judge has the discretion to impose consecutive sentence so you just say that he abused it how did he abuse it well your honor he was he was required to impose what's what would be appropriate in a criminal penalty considering considering his current he was facing an eighteen had eighteen years left on his underlying drug case and we had we had objected to this record there was an abuse of discretion to to run everything consecutively to that that's what he has the discretion to do that i would he recognized his discretion and you just dispute his exercise of that discretion that that is correction on the grounds consecutive to his eighteen year drug sentence was in effect it was a it was a life sentence for mr v objected to as not being reasonable but we may not agree or you may not agree with it of vision when i looked at the record the district judge certainly went through the thirty five fifty three and factors and highlighted those that he felt required a severe sentence correct and and we the point i highlighted about  may please the court terry cushing for the united states your honors that this record is a very thorough record it's one of the best we've had a long time i think then that shows on both of these issues that the agents did their job they respected this man's rights they made sure they were respected his rights and there's no reason to believe that they simply just ran roughshod over a non english speaker and on the sentencing issue the record shows that the district judge went through every factor that he was required to he cited all the relevant statutes he cited the relevant guidelines this court doesn't even require that the judge actually cite the relevant guidelines or statutes just as long as the record shows that the judge considered that this record here she shows that the judge  considered them did a thorough analysis of each factor and imposed a sentence that was within its discretion to impose on the suppression issue these agents here they talked to inmates who he had interactions with all the inmates they talk to said converses in english every day inmates who didn't speak spanish at all they would have understood the spanish spanish if mr b a cast and they'd want to speak spanish didn't need to he understood english he's fluent in english the prison authorities told the agents yes we conversed with him in english his intake form indicated he didn't need an interpreter even when they sat down to talk to him though with all this background they believed he could speak english but they made sure with him they asked him is he comfortable in english and he told them he was they asked him if he wanted an interpreter he said no he declined that and these questions here weren't just yes and no quite answers questions and answers and the district court found the agency credible on this and this court always gives great deference to a district court credibility findings  that they asked open ended questions and mr via cast in a gave detailed responses in english to their questions no evidence at all except for maybe mr v a ca time was it not the policy then it was it was a brand new policy and it was still being the details and that was it wasn't out wasn't in effect at that at this time that's a point where despite the fact that this record is very clear  most things that was a point in the record that i didn't find particularly clear well i mean i can't get we just take judicial notice of when department of justice policies are in effect or not i mean i think it's easy to find out  something new but the judge i mean we can just willy even assume that it was a policy and they didn't record it in violation of the policy that it does not in this circumstance with all the other record evidence we have but the department itself recognizes that each agency has to implement their own procedures in following the policy so but again we could say that they didn't follow the policy  a factor that the court could have considered in the court did consider was brought up he didn't mention it in his memorandum opinion but he found these agents credible because of the the other detail in their testimony and all the corroboration the he spoke english to her and she testified at the hearing so we have all this other evidence so we could say that well that would be a count on mr via cast and they decide but it would only go to credibility a well those distinctions don't really matter here obviously they're not on all fours the the facts are strictly the same but the similarities here are what are more important the agents had believed he could speak english and it wasn't just we believe it and that was their testimony and do you believe them or not there was they did their homework like they did in  there also researched his familiarity with english before they ever talked to him and that's what happened here the agents did their homework they researched it they went talk to people and look at his record he they knew he'd been in trouble before so all these factors those are present to the extent that were you know slightly different factions not exactly he was in country for twelve years mr v h s unaided has been in this country for ten years maybe off and on but it looks like more on than off but it in you rate he conversed in english in all of this dealings with the people he dealt the judges in western district of kentucky have never imposed on reasonably harsh sentences in your view i welcome it to the extent that my have it's relevant judge is that that is my view not i'm having problems expressing i'm surprised because  i generally agree with offsets as but i have seen overly harsh sentences almost everywhere not occasion well judge again allowed to the extent that my belief is relevant which i not what we really need to focus on here is that the district judge had the discretion to impose this sentence the factors that the judge considered he went through them thoroughly there's the others my colleague on the other side here cannot point to a single factor that shows that the district court abused its discretion because it considered all the factors it analyzed all the factors mr view cast in a disagrees with the judge fourteen i believe mr vias interview was in november of two thousand and fifteen what about this argument that it's not effective until it's rolled out in each area so you know i've i've read the policy i don't believe that it says anything in there about each question but we don't know because there was no record we don't know because the f b i produced no notes from their interview what they had was the summation of what mr via apparently told them which was a critical and key factor  well that i don't believe the answer was whether they exist or not that believe that did not exist not that they did not exist that's different than i want to submit they did not exist ok sorry ok that's not what you said sorry could create the confusion that they did not exist and were not able to be produced for that reason  his appreciation for you excepting this case some of the criminal justice we know you do that as a service to our system of justice thank you very much