Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01306/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01306-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eliseo Aragon-Pando
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

4 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

FILED 

United States 0.>Urt of Appeals 

Tenth Cir(Uit 

MAY 16 1990 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

ELISEO ARAGON-PANDO, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

No. 89-1306 

(D.C. No. 89-CR-117) 

(D. Colo.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before*TACHA and EBEL, Circuit Judges, and DUMBAULD, District 

Judge. 

This appeal is from defendant's conviction of distribution of 

cocaine and conspiracy to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 

U.S.C. § 84l(a)(l) and (b)(l)(B)(ii) and 21 U.S.C. § 846. 

Defendant appeals on the grounds that the district court erred in 

holding that defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his 

right to counsel prior to making statements during a post-arrest 

interrogation. Defendant asserts that he did not understand his 

right to counsel and therefore did not knowingly and intelligently 

waive that right because the police department form that was used 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

** The Honorable Edward Dumbauld, District Judge, United States 

District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, sitting 

by designation. 

Appellate Case: 89-1306 Document: 01019970176 Date Filed: 05/16/1990 Page: 1 
to inform him of his rights was incorrectly translated into 

Spanish and therefore that he did not understand the information 

being conveyed to him. We disagree. The district court found 

that defendant was advised of his rights in English and that he 

carried on a conversation with the agent in English. The court 

found that the agent did not rely upon the police department form 

about which defendant complains. We cannot say that the district 

court was clearly erroneous in finding that defendant knowingly 

and intelligently waived his rights. We agree that under these 

circumstances the Miranda warning was adequate and that the motion 

to suppress was properly denied. AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-1306 Document: 01019970176 Date Filed: 05/16/1990 Page: 2