Opinion ID: 799956
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Predicting the Appeal

Text: The appellant's final charge of prejudicial commentary, which he raises for the first time on appeal, need not detain us. Confronted on several occasions with the need for English translations, the court noted that such translations were required for appeal purposes, and reflected on the importance of making a proper record for appeal. The appellant's brief is devoid of any developed argumentation on the issue, offering only an oblique suggestion that, in conjunction with the other prejudicial remarks, the comments warrant closer consideration. Such sparse elaboration falls far short of the development required for consideration on appeal, and we could reject the claim on this ground alone. See United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir.1990) (holding that issues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation, are deemed waived). Moreover, the record here reflects a wholly rational explanation for the court's references. As we have said, it is clear, to the point of transparency, that federal court proceedings must be conducted in English.... [And] parties are required to translate all foreign language documents into English. United States v. Rivera-Rosario, 300 F.3d 1, 5, 7 n. 4 (1st Cir.2002). Normally, the submission of foreign documents unaccompanied by English translations is error, and such documents would not be considered on appeal. See United States v. Contreras Palacios, 492 F.3d 39, 43 n. 7 (1st Cir.2007). The court, in neutrally referencing the preservation of the record, was merely explaining to the jury the significance of the translations in light of these stringent rules. Such comments were not impermissible, let alone prejudicial.