United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-50151

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Tomas Herrera-Quinones, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:21-CR-849-3 

______________________________

Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Stephen A. Higginson, Circuit Judge: *

Tomas Herrera-Quinones was convicted, following a jury trial, of one 

count of conspiracy to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana, in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(B), and one count of 

possession with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana, in 

violation of § 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(B) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Herrera-Quinones 

_____________________

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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 29, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-50151 Document: 00517047678 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/29/2024
No. 22-50151

2

initially pled guilty, changed his plea to not guilty, went to trial, 

unsuccessfully moved to suppress an interview and confession on the 

grounds that he could not have voluntarily waived his Miranda rights in 

Spanish because of his limited understanding of that language as he is a 

Tepehuan speaker, and was convicted. On appeal, he seeks reversal of the 

conviction and a remand for a new suppression hearing, trial, and sentencing 

hearing. Herrera-Quinones argues that the district court erred in conducting 

a suppression hearing, jury trial, and sentencing hearing with a Spanish 

interpreter—rather than a Tepehuan interpreter—and in not advising him of 

his right to an interpreter.

We review a district court’s decision to appoint an interpreter for 

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

We do not decide whether Herrera-Quinones’s claim should be reviewed for 

plain error because he failed to preserve the issue for appeal because we 

conclude that his argument fails under the less exacting abuse of discretion 

standard.

1

 An abuse of discretion occurs if the district court “bases its 

decision on an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the 

evidence.” United States v. Chambliss, 948 F. 3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[T]he necessity for . . . an 

interpreter is a question of fact.” United States v. Tapia, 631 F.2d 1207, 1209 

(5th Cir. 1980). 

The Court Interpreters Act requires, in pertinent part, the 

appointment of an interpreter when a judge, either sua sponte or on the 

motion of a party, determines that the defendant “speak[s] only or primarily 

a language other than the English language” and that fact would “inhibit such 

_____________________

1 Nor do we decide whether the motion to suppress and statements made at the 

pretrial proceedings were sufficient to preserve this issue.

Case: 22-50151 Document: 00517047678 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/29/2024
No. 22-50151

3

party’s comprehension of the proceedings or communication with counsel or 

the presiding judicial officer.” 28 U.S.C. § 1827(d)(1)(A). In other words, 

an interpreter should be appointed when the district court finds that the 

“defendant’s ability to comprehend the proceedings or communicate with 

counsel is inhibited by language or hearing problems.” United States v. Perez, 

918 F.2d 488, 490 (5th Cir. 1990) (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted). 

A magistrate judge stopped Herrera-Quinones’s plea hearing because 

he was concerned that Herrera-Quinones could not understand the 

proceedings with a Spanish interpreter rather than an interpreter who spoke 

Herrera-Quinones’s native language of Tepehuan. At a subsequent hearing 

before the magistrate judge, the court conferred with Herrera-Quinones 

through a Tepehuan interpreter and Herrera-Quinones entered a plea of not 

guilty. As this court has explained, “the need for translation of the pretrial 

proceeding put[s] the district court on notice of the need to make inquiry 

regarding the defendant’s language competency.” Perez, 918 F.2d at 490 

(discussing Tapia).

At the hearing on the motion to suppress Herrera-Quinones’s 

confession, the district court had the following colloquy with HerreraQuinones’s trial counsel:

The Court: [H]ave you been able to communicate with your client?

Counsel: In this particular case, I have been able to communicate with 

him through a Tepehuan interpreter, and we have had very limited 

success with any other type of interpretation. 

The Court: Okay. And we have a Spanish speaker interpreting today. 

We also have a Tepehuan interpreter standing by, I think, which we 

will use if we get to that point. 

Suppression Hr’g Tr. 4:23- 5:7, ECF 184. 

Case: 22-50151 Document: 00517047678 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/29/2024
No. 22-50151

4

Following this, Herrera-Quinones opted to proceed with only a 

Spanish interpreter and testified at the hearing that he understood—through 

the use of only the Spanish interpreter—what was said at the hearing 

including the testimony of the four witnesses against him that day. On appeal

after trial and conviction, Herrera-Quinones fails to explain how, given the 

unaccepted offer of a Tepehuan interpreter and Herrera-Quinones’s 

testimony that he was able to understand the proceedings through a Spanish 

interpreter, the district court abused its discretion.

We therefore AFFIRM.

Case: 22-50151 Document: 00517047678 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/29/2024