N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. PR INC E M AR TIN M AYELE, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-50476

D.C . No. 2:12-c r-00210-DSF-1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Da le S. Fisc he r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm itte d August 6, 2015 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : SILVER

M AN, SAC K ** , a

nd WARDLAW , C irc u it Judge s. Princ e M artin M ay e le a

ppe a ls the judgm e nt a

nd se nte nc e of the distric t c ourt following the

e ntry of his guilty

ple a for e nga ging in m a il a

nd wire fra

u d. W e have jurisdic tion pursua

nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm . 

# FIL ED SEP 14 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble R obe rt D. Sa c k , Se nior C i rc u it Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a ls for the Se c ond C irc uit, sitting by de signa tion.M ay e le e nte re d into his guilty ple a volunta rily and inte llige ntly . Se eUnite d State s v . De lgado-Ramos , 635 F.3d 1237, 1239 (9th C ir. 2011). The la c k of a Linga l a inte rpre te r at M ay e le ’ s proc e e dings did not re nde r his guilty

ple a involunta ry or uninte llige nt . At his c ha nge of ple a , se nte nc ing, a nd re stitution he arings, M ay e le de m onstra te d his a bility to c om p re he nd a nd c om m unic at e flue ntly in English. Se eForre n s v . Unite d State s , 504 F.2d 65 (9th C ir. 1974); se e also United State

s v . Bigman , 906 F.2d 392, 394 n.1 (9th C i r. 1990). At his cha nge of ple a he aring in pa

rtic ula r, M ay e le e xplic itly

c onfirm e d his a

bility to unde rsta

nd the p roc e e dings whe n a ske d by the distric t c ourt. M ay e le c onfirm e d, inte r alia , that he unde rstood his rights; tha t c ounse l ha d re a d a

nd disc u sse d the ple a a gre e m e nt with him ; tha

t he unde rstood thete rm s of the ple a a gre e m e nt ; tha

t he wa s ple a d ing guilty

of his own fre e will; a

nd tha t he did not ne e d a d ditiona l tim e to disc uss his rights with c ounse l. At e a c h of his he a

rings, M ay e le wa s c o nsiste ntly re sponsiveto the c ourt’ s que rie s, offe ring de ta ile d a nswe rs whic h e vinc e d

an a dva nc e d profic ie nc y

in the English la

ngua ge . At the June 11, 2012 sc he duling c onfe re nc e , M ay e le , his c ounse l, a nd the distric t judgea gre e d tha

t M a y e le spoke English “ve ry

we ll,” suc h tha

t no inte rpre te r wa s re quire d at tha t he aring. C ounse l sta

te d tha t da y tha t a n inte rpre t e r

2would bere quire d if the c a se proc e e de d to tria l, a nd the distric t c ourt le ft it to c ounse l to inform

the c ourt if a

n inte rpre t e r wa s re q

u ire d for a

ny subse que nt proc e e dings. The distric t c ourt ne ve r m a de a finding tha

t a n inte rpre t e r wa s re quire d pursua

nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1827(d)(1). The re fore , the distric t c o urt wa s not re quire d to ha

ve an inte rpre te r pre se nt a t M ay e l e ’ s proc e e dings. And, ne ithe r c ounse l nor M a

y e l e re que ste d a

n inte rpre te r at a

ny of his subse que nt he arings. Nor wa s the re any

indic ation tha

t M ay e le c ould not follow the proc e e dings, or tha

t he ne e de d a ny a ssista nc e in orde r to unde rsta

nd a nd c om m unic ate flue ntly

with the distric t c o urt. The issue of M ay e le ’ s purporte d ne e d for a Linga la inte rpre te r wa s not ra ise d a ga in until M ay e l e ’ s pro se m otions following se nte nc ing. AFFIRM E D.

3