Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01123/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01123-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Palwinder Singh Khehra
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No.04-1123

___________

United States of America, * 

* 

Appellee, * 

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Northern District of Iowa.

Palwinder Singh Khehra, * 

* [PUBLISHED]

Appellant. * 

___________

Submitted: November 19, 2004

Filed: January 31, 2005

___________

Before SMITH, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Palwinder Khehra was found guilty of distributing pseudoephedrine, knowing

and having reasonable cause to believe it would be used to manufacture

methamphetamine (counts I & II) and conspiracy to distribute pseudoephedrine

(count III). On appeal, Khehra argues that the district court should have appointed an

interpreter for him at trial and that the evidence was insufficient to support the

verdict. We disagree and affirm. 

I. Background

Khehra, a native of India, moved to the United States in 1998 and gained

political asylum. Khehra is a 39 year old college graduate. Khehra and his family

Appellate Case: 04-1123 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/31/2005 Entry ID: 1861260 
1

The Honorable Edward J. McManus, United States District Judge for the

Northern District of Iowa.

-2-

eventually settled in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, where he opened a convenience store.

Based upon information from Ben Hines, Khehra began selling large quantities of

pseudoephedrine pills to Ben Hines and Dan Hines in 2002. Ben Hines used the pills

to manufacture methamphetamine while Dan Hines traded the pills to another

methamphetamine manufacturer in exchange for methamphetamine.

Khehra usually charged Ben Hines between $16.00 and $23.00 per bottle of

pseudoephedrine when the retail price was only between $10.99 and $11.99 per

bottle. During one sale, Khehra offered Ben Hines several cases of starter fluid that

is often used to manufacture methamphetamine. During February and March of 2003,

Iowa Division of Narcotics Enforcement Special Agent Greg Brugman made three

controlled buys of pseudoephedrine from Khehra totaling fifty-four bottles and three

packets of pseudoephedrine. On two occasions, Khehra asked Brugman if he was a

cop or worked for the cops. On March 20, 2003, Khehra's store was searched and

invoices were seized along with $42,174.00 in United States currency. Khehra

initially denied selling more than two bottles of pseudoephedrine to Brugman and

denied he knew him. Khehra spoke English during all of the controlled buys.

Khehra was charged in a three-count indictment. Counts I and II alleged that

Khehra distributed pseudoephedrine, knowing and having reasonable cause to believe

it would be used to manufacture methamphetamine. Count III charged conspiracy to

distribute pseudoephedrine. There was also a forfeiture allegation for $42,174.00 in

U.S. currency. The jury found Khehra guilty and he was sentenced1

 to 121 months

imprisonment, two years supervised release, and a $300.00 special assessment was

imposed.

Appellate Case: 04-1123 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/31/2005 Entry ID: 1861260 
-3-

II. Discussion

A. Sufficient Evidence to Support the Verdict

Khehra contends there was a lack of evidence to prove he was familiar with the

methamphetamine manufacturing process or that he knew Ben and Dan Hines were

using the pseudoephedrine they purchased from him to manufacture

methamphetamine. We "[view] the evidence in the light most favorable to the

government, resolving evidentiary conflicts in favor of the government, and accepting

all reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence to support the jury's verdict."

United States v. Espino, 317 F.3d 788, 791 (8th Cir. 2003). The jury's verdict may

only be reversed if "no reasonable jury could have found the accused guilty beyond

a reasonable doubt." Id.

In order to convict, the jury had to find that Khehra knew or had reasonable

cause to believe the pseudoephedrine would be used to manufacture

methamphetamine. Knowledge is inferred from surrounding circumstances. United

States v. Ojeda, 23 F.3d 1473, 1476 (8th Cir. 1994). Khehra sold pseudoephedrine to

Dan and Ben Hines and Brugman in quantities exceeding what a reasonable person

would consider legitimate consumer purchases. He also offered to sell starter fluid,

a common ingredient in the production of methamphetamine. The fact that Khehra

charged a premium price for pseudoephedrine is entirely consistent with making

knowingly illicit sales of a controlled substance. Khehra twice asked Brugman if he

was a cop before selling pseudoephedrine. Khehra purchased pseudoephedrine from

more than one supplier to allay suspicion. During the search of his store, Khehra

denied selling Brugman more that two bottles of pseudoephedrine at a time. See

United States v. Bewig, 354 F.3d 731, 737–38 (8th Cir. 2003) (explaining that bulk

sales of pseudoephedrine to routine customers suggested that defendant was acting

as a front for an organized drug scheme, while the nature of the sales transactions

suggested an illegal goal). The evidence was sufficient for the jury to find Khehra

guilty. 

Appellate Case: 04-1123 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/31/2005 Entry ID: 1861260 
-4-

B. Appointment of an Interpreter 

Khehra argues for the first time on appeal that an interpreter should have been

appointed for him before trial because his lack of fluency in English hampered his

ability to mount an effective defense. The evidence is undisputed that Khehra's native

language is the Punjabi dialect. However, Khehra never asked for an interpreter

before sentencing, nor did he testify at trial. Khehra's defense counsel stated he had

no difficulty communicating with Khehra. His counsel specifically asked Khehra

whether he wanted or needed an interpreter for trial. Khehra said he did not. When

Khehra requested an interpreter at sentencing, his stated reason was to aid the court

in understanding Khehra's testimony, not to aid Khehra's understanding of English.

The district court conversed with Khehra to assure that he had a sufficient mastery of

English to proceed and determined that he did. 

Khehra argues that at arraignment the district court was put on notice that he

may have difficulties understanding English when authorities requested Khehra

surrender his passport, but he was unfamiliar with the concept of a passport. We

review a district court's decision to appoint an interpreter for abuse of discretion.

United States v. Coronel-Quintana, 752 F.2d 1284, 1291 (8th Cir. 1985); Luna v.

Black, 772 F.2d 448, 451 (8th Cir. 1985). Errors not brought to the attention of the

district court are reviewed for plain error. United States v. Gonzales, 339 F.3d 725,

728 (8th Cir. 2003); Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b). Khehra never objected to the failure of

the district court to provide an interpreter. We therefore review for plain error and

find none. 

The appointment of an interpreter is placed squarely within the district court's

discretion. Quintana, 752 F.2d at 1291; Gonzales, 339 F.3d at 727 (8th Cir. 2003); 28

U.S.C. § 1827. The district court should base its decision on factors, including the

defendant's understanding of the English language and the complexity of the

proceedings, issues, and testimony. Quintana, 752 F.2d at 1291. "[W]here no request

is made for an interpreter and the record shows no need for one in that the defendant

Appellate Case: 04-1123 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/31/2005 Entry ID: 1861260 
-5-

has no difficulty in communicating, a trial court does not abuse its discretion by

failing to appoint an interpreter." Luna, 772 F.2d at 451; see also Gonzalez-Perez v.

Harper, 241 F.3d 633, 637 (8th Cir. 2001).

Khehra had lived in the United States for over five years and owned a

convenience store in rural Iowa where he had to communicate in English to both

customers and vendors. Khehra's defense counsel never asserted that he had any

problem communicating with Khehra. Khehra told his counsel that he did not need

an interpreter for trial. The tape recordings of the controlled purchases show Khehra

conversing with Ben and Dan Hines and Brugman in English. Khehra also

communicated with officers during the search of his store. The trial was not complex

and Khehra only requested an interpreter at sentencing to assure the court understood

him. Under the circumstances, we cannot say that the district court committed plain

error by failing to appoint an interpreter for Khehra.

We affirm the jury's verdict and the sentence of the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1123 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/31/2005 Entry ID: 1861260