Opinion ID: 623296
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Transcript Omissions

Text: Delgado finally argues that omissions in the trial transcript violate the Court Reporter Act, 28 U.S.C. § 753(b), and necessitate a new trial. There is little need to address this argument at length. To be entitled to a reversal of her convictions, Delgado must demonstrate that a “substantial and significant portion of the record” is missing. United States v. Selva, 559 F.2d 1303, 1306 (5th Cir. 1977). Although Delgado points to numerous ellipses in the trial transcript, her appellate counsel admitted at argument that the omissions include only 30 Case: 07-41041 Document: 00511764680 Page: 31 Date Filed: 02/22/2012 No. 07-41041 those brief interludes during which the speakers’ voices were inaudible or otherwise unintelligible.30 Our cases make clear that a gapless transcription of a trial is not required. We have not found reversible error even when a transcript was missing seventy-two bench conferences. United States v. Gieger, 190 F.3d 661, 667 (5th Cir. 1999); see also United States v. Aubin, 87 F.3d 141, 149–50 (5th Cir. 1996) (holding that failure to transcribe nine bench conferences did not constitute reversible error). All of Delgado’s objections and all of the district court’s rulings are on the record. Delgado has not demonstrated that any of the short omissions in the transcript were “significant” or “substantial” as required by our precedents.