[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-15430

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 4:13-cr-00198-VEH-PWG-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALFONSO GONZALEZ-FLORES,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

________________________

(July 18, 2014)

Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and ANDERSON , Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 13-15430 Date Filed: 07/18/2014 Page: 1 of 6 
2

Alfonso Gonzalez-Flores was charged in one count with conspiracy to 

distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of 

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and in another count with 

possessing, with intent to distribute, 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) . He entered into a plea agreement and pled

guilty to the conspiracy count, and the District Court sentenced him to a prison 

term of 108 months, at the bottom of the Guidelines range of 108 to 135 months.1

 

He now appeals his conviction, challenging the District Court’s failure to record 

and have transcribed during his guilty plea hearing (1) the English-to-Spanish and 

Spanish-to-English communications between him and the court interpreter, or (2) 

the interpreter’s identification, qualifications, or oath. He argues that the Court 

Reporter Act’s “verbatim” requirement in 28 U.S.C. § 753(b), Federal Rule of 

Evidence 604, and the Court Interpreters Act in 28 U.S.C. § 1827 necessitate that 

these portions of the hearing be recorded or transcribed, and that the absence of 

such has prevented his new counsel on appeal from reviewing the record to 

determine the voluntariness of his plea.

We review issues not raised before the district court for plain error. United 

States v. Madden, 733 F.3d 1314, 1319 (11th Cir. 2013). Establishing plain error 

requires that a defendant show (1) an error (2) that is plain and (3) that has affected 

 

1

 See Presentence Report at ¶ 46.

Case: 13-15430 Date Filed: 07/18/2014 Page: 2 of 6 
3

his substantial rights. Id. at 1320. Even if a defendant meets this burden, we need 

not remedy the error unless it “seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public 

reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (alterations omitted). An error is plain if it 

is obvious and clear under current law. United States v. Gandy, 710 F.3d 1234, 

1240 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 134 S.Ct. 304 (2013). “It is the law of this circuit 

that, at least where the explicit language of a statute or rule does not specifically 

resolve an issue, there can be no plain error where there is no precedent from the 

Supreme Court or this Court directly resolving it.” United States v. Lejarde-Rada, 

319 F.3d 1288, 1291 (11th Cir. 2003).

I.

The Court Reporter Act provides, in pertinent part, that: 

Each session of the court and every other proceeding designated by 

rule or order of the court or by one of the judges shall be recorded 

verbatim . . . , subject to regulations promulgated by the Judicial 

Conference and subject to the discretion and approval of the 

judge. . . . Proceedings to be recorded under this section include [] all 

proceedings in criminal cases had in open court . . . .

28 U.S.C. § 753(b). Section 753(b)’s requirement that district courts record 

“verbatim” all criminal proceedings held in open court is “mandatory.” United 

States v. Cashwell, 950 F.2d 699, 703 (11th Cir. 1992). Moreover, in trial settings, 

a defendant has a “right to a record on appeal” as a matter of due process, which 

includes the right to a “complete transcript of the proceedings at trial.” Id. 

Nevertheless, a “merely technically incomplete record, involving no substantial or 

Case: 13-15430 Date Filed: 07/18/2014 Page: 3 of 6 
4

significant omissions,” is insufficient to warrant reversal. Id. Where a defendant 

is represented by counsel different on appeal than at trial, a new trial is required 

only if there is a “substantial and significant omission” from the trial transcript. 

United States v. Charles, 313 F.3d 1278, 1283 (11th Cir. 2002).

Section § 753(b) explicitly qualifies its “verbatim” requirement by stating 

that it is subject to regulations promulgated by the Judicial Conference. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 753(b). The Judicial Conference regulations indicate generally that “the 

transcript must contain all words and other verbal expressions uttered during the 

course of the proceeding.” 6 Guide to Judiciary Policy § 520.40.10. The 

regulations expressly except from this requirement, however, testimony made 

through an interpreter. See id. § 520.40.10(g). In such cases, the regulations 

provide that “it will be assumed that answers are made in a foreign language and 

interpreted unless a parenthetical ‘(in English)’ is inserted.” Id. The model 

transcript, which covers the testimony of a Spanish-speaking defendant, includes 

only English translations of the defendant’s testimony via the court interpreter. See 

id. at App’x 5A.

Neither the Supreme Court nor any of our published decisions have

interpreted either § 753(b) of the Court Reporter Act or the right to a complete 

transcript in the context of a recording or transcription of guilty plea hearings. As 

to the cases cited by Gonzalez-Flores in his brief, in Selva, the former Fifth Circuit 

Case: 13-15430 Date Filed: 07/18/2014 Page: 4 of 6 
5

applied these rules to the District Court’s omission altogether of closing arguments 

from the transcript of a defendant’s trial and concluded that such failure to 

transcribe that portion of the trial was reversible error where appellate counsel was 

different from trial counsel. United States v. Selva, 559 F.2d 1303, 1304-06 (5th 

Cir. 1977). In addition, in Charles, we considered whether the District Court’s 

admitting a defendant’s out-of-court statements to an interpreter during an 

interview with a customs official violated the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation 

Clause, and held that it did not. United States v. Charles, 722 F.3d 1319, 1322-32 

(11th Cir. 2013).

Here, the District Court did not plainly err in not recording or transcribing 

during Gonzalez-Flores’s plea hearing the Spanish-to-English and 

English-to-Spanish exchanges between him and the court interpreter because there 

is no binding authority requiring such, the plain language of § 753(b) of the Court 

Reporter Act does not address it, and the Judicial Conference regulations provide 

to the contrary.

II.

Section 1827 of the Court Interpreters Act provides, in pertinent part, that:

The Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts 

shall establish a program to facilitate the use of certified and 

otherwise qualified interpreters in judicial proceedings instituted by 

the United States . . . . [and] shall prescribe, determine, and certify the 

qualifications of persons who may serve as certified interpreters . . . .

Case: 13-15430 Date Filed: 07/18/2014 Page: 5 of 6 
6

28 U.S.C. § 1827(a), (b)(1). The section does not explicitly mention the need to 

identify or establish in a transcript or recording the qualifications of a designated 

court interpreter. See id. It does, however, provide that, upon a party’s motion, 

“the presiding judicial officer shall determine whether to require the electronic 

sound recording of a judicial proceeding in which an interpreter is used under this 

section.” Id. § 1827(d)(2). Federal Rule of Evidence 604 explicitly states that 

“[a]n interpreter must be qualified and must give an oath or affirmation to make a 

true translation.” Fed. R. Evid. 604. Rule 604 does not reference recording or 

transcription of an interpreter’s qualifications or oath, however. See id. Neither 

the Supreme Court nor any of our published decisions have interpreted either 

§ 1827 or Rule 604 in the context of recording or transcription of guilty plea 

hearings.

The District Court did not plainly err in not recording or transcribing during 

Gonzalez-Flores’s plea hearing the court interpreter’s identification, qualifications, 

or oath because there is no binding authority requiring such, and the plain language 

of § 1827 of the Court Interpreters Act and Rule 604 likewise does not compel the 

inclusion of that information in the transcript.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 13-15430 Date Filed: 07/18/2014 Page: 6 of 6