Court Opinion

ID: 9839799
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-14 00:00:33.790372+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:38:29.853626
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50742        Document: 00516894019             Page: 1      Date Filed: 09/13/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                          United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                          Fifth Circuit

                                     ____________                                       FILED
                                                                                September 13, 2023
                                      No. 22-50742                                   Lyle W. Cayce
                                     ____________                                         Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Fidel Gutierrez-Garcia,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:21-CR-1073-4
                     ______________________________

   Before Willett, Engelhardt, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         After a bench trial, the district court found Fidel Gutierrez-Garcia
   guilty of possessing with intent to distribute marijuana and sentenced him to
   two years of imprisonment. On appeal, Gutierrez argues the district court
   abused its discretion when it denied his motion to dismiss the indictment.
   Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50742     Document: 00516894019          Page: 2   Date Filed: 09/13/2023

                                   No. 22-50742

                                         I.
          Border Patrol agents found Gutierrez and three other suspects with
   backpacks near the Texas-Mexico border. The packs held about 108
   kilograms of marijuana. Gutierrez was indicted for importing one hundred
   kilograms or more of marijuana, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(a), (b)(2), and
   possessing with intent to distribute one hundred kilograms or more of
   marijuana, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B).
          At his initial appearance, Gutierrez told the court, through a Spanish
   interpreter, that his primary language was Tepehuan (a dialect spoken by
   certain indigenous people in Mexico). Gutierrez also stated that he spoke “a
   little” Spanish and was able to understand the interpreter “a little bit.”
   ROA.133.
          Gutierrez subsequently moved to dismiss the indictment without
   prejudice. He argued that he was unable to understand the proceedings
   against him or to communicate with his attorney absent a Tepehuan
   interpreter. The district court held an evidentiary hearing on Gutierrez’s
   motion to dismiss. At the hearing, Gutierrez called his attorney, Bob Garcia.
   Garcia, a fluent Spanish speaker, testified that he had discovered during his
   first meeting with Gutierrez that his native language was Tepehuan and that
   he spoke limited Spanish. Garcia stated that, in his opinion, Gutierrez was
   unable to understand the legal concepts and rights needed to participate in
   his defense. Gutierrez also called Luis Navarro, a Spanish interpreter who
   had previously interpreted for Gutierrez at his initial appearance. Navarro
   testified that he was unable to communicate the necessary legal concepts with
   Gutierrez in Spanish. Navarro also stated that his attempts to locate a
   Tepehuan interpreter had failed.
          The Government called interpreter Christian Saenz, who interpreted
   for Gutierrez in Spanish during his post-arrest interview. Saenz noted that

                                         2
Case: 22-50742        Document: 00516894019           Page: 3   Date Filed: 09/13/2023

                                       No. 22-50742

   Gutierrez gave comprehensible Spanish responses to his Spanish questions.
   He noted that Gutierrez did not give long answers but did give interpretable
   phrases in Spanish. The Government also called one of Gutierrez’s co-
   defendants, Guadalupe Arguelles-Quintero. Arguelles testified that he
   remembered Gutierrez speaking Spanish with himself and other members of
   their group during their six-night backpacking trip from Mexico to the United
   States.
             Gutierrez then voluntarily took the stand and testified with the help of
   a Spanish interpreter. ROA.219. Gutierrez testified that he understood he
   had been arrested by the police because he “was carrying pot.” ROA.221. He
   answered additional questions about his role in carrying the drugs and said he
   thought he would be paid to carry them into the United States. And he
   indicated he understood the maximum sentence he could face if convicted.
             The district court denied Gutierrez’s motion to dismiss the
   indictment. The court concluded that Gutierrez’s testimony was the best
   evidence of his ability to speak Spanish. ROA.78. The court reasoned that
   Gutierrez “was able to communicate via the [c]ourt’s Spanish interpreter
   with ease, despite being asked long complex questions.” ROA.78. And the
   court concluded that its observations of Gutierrez communicating in
   Spanish, buttressed by the testimony of Arguelles and Navarro, supported
   the denial of the motion to dismiss. The court explained that Gutierrez’s
   inability to understand legal concepts was less troubling than “not being able
   to understand the language . . . we’re interpreting . . . in.” ROA.229.
             During the subsequent bench trial, the parties stipulated that
   Gutierrez possessed with intent to distribute marijuana. The district court
   found Gutierrez guilty of possessing with intent to distribute 100 kilograms
   or more of marijuana. The district court sentenced Gutierrez to two years
   imprisonment, a bottom-of-the-Guidelines sentence, and three years of

                                            3
Case: 22-50742      Document: 00516894019           Page: 4    Date Filed: 09/13/2023

                                     No. 22-50742

   supervised release. Gutierrez timely appealed, arguing that the district court
   failed to provide an appropriate interpreter.
                                          II.
          We review the decision to appoint an interpreter for abuse of
   discretion. United States v. Bell, 367 F.3d 452, 463 (5th Cir. 2004). A court
   abuses its discretion when “it bases its decision on an error of law or a clearly
   erroneous assessment of the evidence.” United States v. Handlon, 53 F.4th
   348, 351 (5th Cir. 2022) (quotation omitted).
          When a defendant “only or primarily” speaks “a language other
   than” English, the Court Interpreters Act requires that a district court
   “utilize the services” of an interpreter “in judicial proceedings instituted by
   the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1827(d)(1)(A). A defendant’s statutory right
   to an interpreter under the Act is violated where the lack of an interpreter
   inhibited a defendant’s comprehension of the proceedings or communication
   to such an extent that the proceedings were “fundamentally unfair.” Bell,
   367 F.3d at 464 (quotation omitted). This is “a two-step inquiry.” United
   States v. Hasan (Hasan I), 526 F.3d 653, 666 (10th Cir. 2008) (Gorsuch, J.)
   (quotation omitted). “First, the district court must assess whether
   comprehension or communication was inhibited.” Id. If so, then the court
   must ask whether the proceedings were rendered fundamentally unfair as a
   result. Id. We analyze each step in turn.
          First, the district court did not clearly err in concluding that Gutierrez
   could understand Spanish well enough to understand the proceedings against
   him. See United States v. Tapia, 631 F.2d 1207, 1209 (5th Cir. 1980)
   (acknowledging “that the necessity for . . . an interpreter is a question of
   fact”); United States v. Hasan (Hasan II), 609 F.3d 1121, 1127 (10th Cir. 2010)
   (“Under the abuse-of-discretion standard, we review the district court’s
   factual determinations for clear error.”). “There is no clear error if the

                                          4
Case: 22-50742      Document: 00516894019          Page: 5    Date Filed: 09/13/2023

                                    No. 22-50742

   district court’s finding is plausible in light of the record as a whole.” United
   States v. Johnson, 14 F.4th 342, 349 (5th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted).
          Here, the district court held an evidentiary hearing and heard from
   multiple witnesses before denying Gutierrez’s motion to dismiss. The
   district court observed Gutierrez testifying through a Spanish interpreter at
   the evidentiary hearing firsthand. From its firsthand observation, the district
   court concluded that Gutierrez was able to communicate through the Spanish
   interpreter “fluidly,” “quickly,” and “with ease.” ROA.78, 220-26. During
   the hearing, Gutierrez explained through the Spanish interpreter that he
   understood he was arrested “[b]ecause [he] was carrying pot.” ROA.221.
   Gutierrez further explained that he was offered a job “[t]o pick the pecans”
   but that, when he arrived in Chihuahua, he learned that the job was actually
   smuggling marijuana. ROA.222. The district court concluded that Gutierrez
   could understand Spanish sufficiently well that he was capable of
   understanding and answering “long complex questions” in Spanish,
   ROA.78, such as whether he understood that the maximum penalty for his
   crime is 20 years, ROA.223. We have said before that the district court “who
   is in direct contact with the witnesses, [a]ppellants, and the interpreters must
   be given wide discretion” in determining whether an interpreter is needed.
   Bell, 367 F.3d at 464 (quotation omitted). That is, of course, because the
   district court was “in the best position to assess [Gutierrez’s] language
   usage, comfort level[,] and intelligibility” at the evidentiary hearing. Hasan
   II, 609 F.3d at 1127 (quotation omitted).
          The district court also relied on the testimony of additional witnesses
   at the evidentiary hearing in denying Gutierrez’s motion. According to those
   witnesses, when the Government agent conducted Gutierrez’s post-arrest
   interview through a Spanish interpreter, Gutierrez understood Spanish and
   gave “complete phrases to interpret,” so that “the interpretation was
   flowing orderly.” ROA.202. The agent learned from all three of Gutierrez’s

                                          5
Case: 22-50742      Document: 00516894019           Page: 6     Date Filed: 09/13/2023

                                     No. 22-50742

   co-defendants that they spoke to Gutierrez in Spanish during the
   backpacking expedition. ROA.13, 191–92. Additionally, the testimony of one
   of Gutierrez’s co-defendants at the evidentiary hearing corroborated that
   information.
          True, there is evidence in the record that Gutierrez did sometimes
   struggle to understand legal concepts. But there is ample record evidence to
   support the district court’s conclusion that Gutierrez’s inability to
   “understand legal concepts” did not stem from his inability to “understand
   the language” that the proceedings were being interpreted in. ROA.229. The
   record indicates that Gutierrez never attended school. Further, the district
   court’s staff interpreter testified that Gutierrez could not understand legal
   concepts in any language because those concepts do not exist in the
   Tepehuan language or culture. And again, the district court is in the best
   position to weigh those challenges against the rest of the record to determine
   whether Gutierrez’s comprehension and communication were inhibited by
   the lack of an interpreter. See Bell, 367 F.3d at 464.
          Second,    even     assuming      Gutierrez’s       comprehension   and
   communication were inhibited, the proceedings below were not
   fundamentally unfair. See id. at 463 (“The ultimate issue is whether the use
   of the interpreter made the trial fundamentally unfair.” (quotation omitted)).
   “[A]n inquiry into fundamental fairness focuses on whether the purposes of
   the Act—comprehension of the proceedings and the ability to effectively
   communicate—were adequately met.” Hasan I, 526 F.3d at 667 (quotation
   omitted). “Minor deviations from ideal communication therefore have been
   held not to render a proceeding fundamentally unfair.” Id. Here, Gutierrez
   knowingly and voluntarily admitted his guilt to the charge of possession of
   marijuana with intent to distribute. He was able to explain the facts
   underlying his crime and accepted responsibility for them. He also repeatedly
   said that he understood the punishment he faced. Any deviations from ideal

                                           6
Case: 22-50742     Document: 00516894019         Page: 7   Date Filed: 09/13/2023

                                  No. 22-50742

   communication in the proceedings below were sufficiently minor that they
   did not render the proceedings fundamentally unfair.
         AFFIRMED.

                                       7