United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 22-50742 

____________ 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Fidel Gutierrez-Garcia, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:21-CR-1073-4 

______________________________ 

Before Willett, Engelhardt, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

 After a bench trial, the district court found Fidel Gutierrez-Garcia 

guilty of possessing with intent to distribute marijuana and sentenced him to 

two years of imprisonment. On appeal, Gutierrez argues the district court 

abused its discretion when it denied his motion to dismiss the indictment. 

Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm. 

_____________________ 

*

 This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

September 13, 2023 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 22-50742 Document: 00516894019 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/13/2023
No. 22-50742 

2 

I. 

 Border Patrol agents found Gutierrez and three other suspects with 

backpacks near the Texas-Mexico border. The packs held about 108 

kilograms of marijuana. Gutierrez was indicted for importing one hundred 

kilograms or more of marijuana, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(a), (b)(2), and 

possessing with intent to distribute one hundred kilograms or more of 

marijuana, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). 

 At his initial appearance, Gutierrez told the court, through a Spanish 

interpreter, that his primary language was Tepehuan (a dialect spoken by 

certain indigenous people in Mexico). Gutierrez also stated that he spoke “a 

little” Spanish and was able to understand the interpreter “a little bit.” 

ROA.133. 

 Gutierrez subsequently moved to dismiss the indictment without 

prejudice. He argued that he was unable to understand the proceedings 

against him or to communicate with his attorney absent a Tepehuan 

interpreter. The district court held an evidentiary hearing on Gutierrez’s 

motion to dismiss. At the hearing, Gutierrez called his attorney, Bob Garcia. 

Garcia, a fluent Spanish speaker, testified that he had discovered during his 

first meeting with Gutierrez that his native language was Tepehuan and that 

he spoke limited Spanish. Garcia stated that, in his opinion, Gutierrez was 

unable to understand the legal concepts and rights needed to participate in 

his defense. Gutierrez also called Luis Navarro, a Spanish interpreter who 

had previously interpreted for Gutierrez at his initial appearance. Navarro 

testified that he was unable to communicate the necessary legal concepts with 

Gutierrez in Spanish. Navarro also stated that his attempts to locate a 

Tepehuan interpreter had failed. 

 The Government called interpreter Christian Saenz, who interpreted 

for Gutierrez in Spanish during his post-arrest interview. Saenz noted that 

Case: 22-50742 Document: 00516894019 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/13/2023
No. 22-50742 

3 

Gutierrez gave comprehensible Spanish responses to his Spanish questions. 

He noted that Gutierrez did not give long answers but did give interpretable 

phrases in Spanish. The Government also called one of Gutierrez’s codefendants, Guadalupe Arguelles-Quintero. Arguelles testified that he 

remembered Gutierrez speaking Spanish with himself and other members of 

their group during their six-night backpacking trip from Mexico to the United 

States. 

 Gutierrez then voluntarily took the stand and testified with the help of 

a Spanish interpreter. ROA.219. Gutierrez testified that he understood he 

had been arrested by the police because he “was carrying pot.” ROA.221. He 

answered additional questions about his role in carrying the drugs and said he 

thought he would be paid to carry them into the United States. And he 

indicated he understood the maximum sentence he could face if convicted. 

 The district court denied Gutierrez’s motion to dismiss the 

indictment. The court concluded that Gutierrez’s testimony was the best 

evidence of his ability to speak Spanish. ROA.78. The court reasoned that 

Gutierrez “was able to communicate via the [c]ourt’s Spanish interpreter 

with ease, despite being asked long complex questions.” ROA.78. And the 

court concluded that its observations of Gutierrez communicating in 

Spanish, buttressed by the testimony of Arguelles and Navarro, supported 

the denial of the motion to dismiss. The court explained that Gutierrez’s 

inability to understand legal concepts was less troubling than “not being able 

to understand the language . . . we’re interpreting . . . in.” ROA.229. 

 During the subsequent bench trial, the parties stipulated that 

Gutierrez possessed with intent to distribute marijuana. The district court 

found Gutierrez guilty of possessing with intent to distribute 100 kilograms 

or more of marijuana. The district court sentenced Gutierrez to two years 

imprisonment, a bottom-of-the-Guidelines sentence, and three years of 

Case: 22-50742 Document: 00516894019 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/13/2023
No. 22-50742 

4 

supervised release. Gutierrez timely appealed, arguing that the district court 

failed to provide an appropriate interpreter. 

II. 

 We review the decision to appoint an interpreter for abuse of 

discretion. United States v. Bell, 367 F.3d 452, 463 (5th Cir. 2004). A court 

abuses its discretion when “it bases its decision on an error of law or a clearly 

erroneous assessment of the evidence.” United States v. Handlon, 53 F.4th 

348, 351 (5th Cir. 2022) (quotation omitted). 

 When a defendant “only or primarily” speaks “a language other 

than” English, the Court Interpreters Act requires that a district court 

“utilize the services” of an interpreter “in judicial proceedings instituted by 

the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1827(d)(1)(A). A defendant’s statutory right 

to an interpreter under the Act is violated where the lack of an interpreter 

inhibited a defendant’s comprehension of the proceedings or communication 

to such an extent that the proceedings were “fundamentally unfair.” Bell, 

367 F.3d at 464 (quotation omitted). This is “a two-step inquiry.” United 

States v. Hasan (Hasan I), 526 F.3d 653, 666 (10th Cir. 2008) (Gorsuch, J.) 

(quotation omitted). “First, the district court must assess whether 

comprehension or communication was inhibited.” Id. If so, then the court 

must ask whether the proceedings were rendered fundamentally unfair as a 

result. Id. We analyze each step in turn. 

 First, the district court did not clearly err in concluding that Gutierrez 

could understand Spanish well enough to understand the proceedings against 

him. See United States v. Tapia, 631 F.2d 1207, 1209 (5th Cir. 1980) 

(acknowledging “that the necessity for . . . an interpreter is a question of 

fact”); United States v. Hasan (Hasan II), 609 F.3d 1121, 1127 (10th Cir. 2010) 

(“Under the abuse-of-discretion standard, we review the district court’s 

factual determinations for clear error.”). “There is no clear error if the 

Case: 22-50742 Document: 00516894019 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/13/2023
No. 22-50742 

5 

district court’s finding is plausible in light of the record as a whole.” United 

States v. Johnson, 14 F.4th 342, 349 (5th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). 

 Here, the district court held an evidentiary hearing and heard from 

multiple witnesses before denying Gutierrez’s motion to dismiss. The 

district court observed Gutierrez testifying through a Spanish interpreter at 

the evidentiary hearing firsthand. From its firsthand observation, the district 

court concluded that Gutierrez was able to communicate through the Spanish 

interpreter “fluidly,” “quickly,” and “with ease.” ROA.78, 220-26. During 

the hearing, Gutierrez explained through the Spanish interpreter that he 

understood he was arrested “[b]ecause [he] was carrying pot.” ROA.221. 

Gutierrez further explained that he was offered a job “[t]o pick the pecans” 

but that, when he arrived in Chihuahua, he learned that the job was actually 

smuggling marijuana. ROA.222. The district court concluded that Gutierrez 

could understand Spanish sufficiently well that he was capable of 

understanding and answering “long complex questions” in Spanish, 

ROA.78, such as whether he understood that the maximum penalty for his 

crime is 20 years, ROA.223. We have said before that the district court “who 

is in direct contact with the witnesses, [a]ppellants, and the interpreters must 

be given wide discretion” in determining whether an interpreter is needed. 

Bell, 367 F.3d at 464 (quotation omitted). That is, of course, because the 

district court was “in the best position to assess [Gutierrez’s] language 

usage, comfort level[,] and intelligibility” at the evidentiary hearing. Hasan 

II, 609 F.3d at 1127 (quotation omitted). 

 The district court also relied on the testimony of additional witnesses 

at the evidentiary hearing in denying Gutierrez’s motion. According to those 

witnesses, when the Government agent conducted Gutierrez’s post-arrest 

interview through a Spanish interpreter, Gutierrez understood Spanish and 

gave “complete phrases to interpret,” so that “the interpretation was 

flowing orderly.” ROA.202. The agent learned from all three of Gutierrez’s 

Case: 22-50742 Document: 00516894019 Page: 5 Date Filed: 09/13/2023
No. 22-50742 

6 

co-defendants that they spoke to Gutierrez in Spanish during the 

backpacking expedition. ROA.13, 191–92. Additionally, the testimony of one 

of Gutierrez’s co-defendants at the evidentiary hearing corroborated that 

information. 

 True, there is evidence in the record that Gutierrez did sometimes 

struggle to understand legal concepts. But there is ample record evidence to 

support the district court’s conclusion that Gutierrez’s inability to 

“understand legal concepts” did not stem from his inability to “understand 

the language” that the proceedings were being interpreted in. ROA.229. The 

record indicates that Gutierrez never attended school. Further, the district 

court’s staff interpreter testified that Gutierrez could not understand legal 

concepts in any language because those concepts do not exist in the 

Tepehuan language or culture. And again, the district court is in the best 

position to weigh those challenges against the rest of the record to determine 

whether Gutierrez’s comprehension and communication were inhibited by 

the lack of an interpreter. See Bell, 367 F.3d at 464. 

Second, even assuming Gutierrez’s comprehension and 

communication were inhibited, the proceedings below were not 

fundamentally unfair. See id. at 463 (“The ultimate issue is whether the use 

of the interpreter made the trial fundamentally unfair.” (quotation omitted)). 

“[A]n inquiry into fundamental fairness focuses on whether the purposes of 

the Act—comprehension of the proceedings and the ability to effectively 

communicate—were adequately met.” Hasan I, 526 F.3d at 667 (quotation 

omitted). “Minor deviations from ideal communication therefore have been 

held not to render a proceeding fundamentally unfair.” Id. Here, Gutierrez 

knowingly and voluntarily admitted his guilt to the charge of possession of 

marijuana with intent to distribute. He was able to explain the facts 

underlying his crime and accepted responsibility for them. He also repeatedly 

said that he understood the punishment he faced. Any deviations from ideal 

Case: 22-50742 Document: 00516894019 Page: 6 Date Filed: 09/13/2023
No. 22-50742 

7 

communication in the proceedings below were sufficiently minor that they 

did not render the proceedings fundamentally unfair. 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 22-50742 Document: 00516894019 Page: 7 Date Filed: 09/13/2023