Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03102/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03102-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bulmaro Aispuro-Guadiana
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Donald E. O’Brien, United States District Judge for the

Northern District of Iowa. 

2

See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (guilty plea coupled with

claims of innocence). 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3102

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Northern District of Iowa

Bulmaro Aispuro-Guadiana, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 7, 2004

Filed: May 25, 2004

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Bulmaro Aispuro-Guadiana (Aispuro) appeals from the final judgment entered

in the District Court1

 for the Northern District of Iowa after he entered an Alford plea2

to possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 841. The district court sentenced Aispuro to 63 months imprisonment and 4 years

Appellate Case: 03-3102 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/25/2004 Entry ID: 1770446 
-2-

supervised release. Counsel has moved to withdraw on appeal and has filed a brief

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court

plainly erred in conducting the plea and sentencing hearings without certified

interpreters. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district

court.

The Court Interpreters Act requires judicial officers in judicial proceedings

instituted by the United States to “utilize the services of the most available certified

interpreter, or when no certified interpreter is reasonably available . . . the services of

an otherwise qualified interpreter.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1827(d)(1). Because Aispuro

did not object at the plea or sentencing hearing to the court’s failure to use a certified

interpreter--and in fact approved the interpreters provided--we review for plain error.

See United States v. Gonzales, 339 F.3d 725, 728 (8th Cir. 2003) (plain error is clear

under current law and affects defendant’s substantial rights). We find insufficient

evidence to demonstrate that the court’s decision to use qualified but uncertified

interpreters affected Aispuro’s substantial rights: there is no indication in the record

that the interpreters and Aispuro had communication problems, or that any confusion

on Aispuro’s part stemmed from any translation error; the plea hearing transcript

supports that Aispuro ultimately understood his Alford plea and desired the benefits

it yielded; and counsel offers no other evidence that the plea was not knowing,

voluntary, and intelligent. See id. at 729 (because defendant pointed to no evidence

that his plea agreement was not entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently,

defendant failed to show that district court’s error in using uncertified interpreters

affected his substantial rights). 

We have reviewed the record independently for any nonfrivolous issues, see

Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we have found none. 

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3102 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/25/2004 Entry ID: 1770446