Court Opinion

ID: 9889239
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-07 00:00:28.159349+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:29:39.450779
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50944         Document: 00516923735             Page: 1      Date Filed: 10/06/2023

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

                                       No. 22-50944
                                                                                         FILED
                                                                                      October 6, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar
                                     ____________                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                           Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Gilberto Lopez,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:20-CR-1567-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          A jury convicted Gilberto Lopez of conspiracy to import 500 grams or
   more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine, importation of
   500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine,
   conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture
   or substance containing methamphetamine, and possession with intent to

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50944      Document: 00516923735            Page: 2    Date Filed: 10/06/2023

                                      No. 22-50944

   distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing
   methamphetamine. As to each count, the district court sentenced him within
   the advisory guidelines range to concurrent prison terms of 262 months. He
   appeals his conviction and sentence.
          Lopez argues that the district court improperly refused to provide an
   interpreter at trial. He asserts that English is not his preferred language and
   maintains that the district court should have inquired more extensively into
   whether he understood English. Lopez alleges that his ability to comprehend
   English was particularly critical because he represented himself at trial. The
   decision to deny an interpreter is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. United
   States v. Ball, 988 F.2d 7, 9 (5th Cir. 1993).
          The district court properly concluded that Lopez—who, inter alia,
   was raised in the United States and attended high school and some college in
   the United States—sufficiently understood English and that no language
   barrier inhibited him from comprehending the proceedings or from
   communicating with the court. See United States v. Perez, 918 F.2d 488, 490
   (5th Cir. 1990); 28 U.S.C. § 1827(d)(1)(A). The decision of the district court
   properly relied on Lopez’s appearances and filings in the case, which
   established that Lopez could ably express himself in English and confirmed
   that no interpreter was needed because his proficiency in English allowed him
   to participate in and understand the proceedings. See United States v. Osoria,
   No. 92-3747, 1993 WL 309725, 1-2 (5th Cir. May 10, 1993) (unpublished but
   precedential; 5th Cir. R. 47.5.3); Perez, 918 F.2d at 490-91; 28 U.S.C. §
   1827(d)(1)(A).    Lopez points to no record evidence to support that a
   translator was required at trial, and his failure to object at trial to the lack of
   an interpreter weighs heavily against his claim. United States v. Paz, 981 F.2d
   199, 201 n.2 (5th Cir. 1992).       He opted to represent himself with an
   understanding of his language skills and cannot complain about the

                                           2
Case: 22-50944      Document: 00516923735           Page: 3     Date Filed: 10/06/2023

                                     No. 22-50944

   effectiveness of his own representation. See McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S.
   168, 177 n.8 (1984).
          Further, Lopez alleges that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct. He
   contends that the prosecutor noted during voir dire that Lopez was detained
   pending trial. Also, he asserts that the prosecutor adduced testimony that he
   waived a preliminary hearing. We review these unpreserved claims for plain
   error only. See United States v. Bolton, 908 F.3d 75, 93 (5th Cir. 2018).
          Lopez has not shown that either the reference to his pretrial detention
   or the discussion as to the waiver of a preliminary hearing cast serious doubt
   on the correctness of the verdict or affected his substantial rights. See Puckett
   v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009); United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d
   511, 516 (5th Cir. 2005). The reference and discussion were limited, did not
   necessarily connote his guilt, were not invoked as a basis for a finding of guilt,
   and were insignificant in the context of the trial as a whole. See United States
   v. Barcenas, 498 F.2d 1110, 1113 (5th Cir. 1974); United States v. Kidd, 446
   F.2d 1385, 1387 (5th Cir. 1970); Leonard v. United States, 386 F.2d 423, 425
   (5th Cir. 1967). The incidents did not present the same visible and continuing
   risk of prejudice as shackles, prison garb, or external signs of incarceration.
   See Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (1976). Further, the district court issued
   instructions to the jury to diminish or eliminate any resulting prejudice, see
   Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 540 (1993), and the record reflects that
   the incidents were inconsequential to the jury’s verdict because the evidence
   was easily sufficient to support a conviction, see Mares, 402 F.3d at 515, 516.
          Moreover, Lopez argues that his right to a fair trial was denied based
   on a number of errors that cumulatively deprived him of due process. Lopez
   offers only a cursory discussion of the alleged errors and does not explain how
   the errors—which are distinct and unrelated—were sufficiently synergistic
   or repetitive such that he was denied the right to a fair trial. See United States

                                           3
Case: 22-50944      Document: 00516923735           Page: 4     Date Filed: 10/06/2023

                                     No. 22-50944

   v. Delgado, 672 F.3d 320, 344 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc). He has not shown
   that this is a rare case in which the errors violated the trial’s fundamental
   fairness. See id. Also, as noted, the evidence of his guilt was not insignificant.
   Thus, Lopez has not shown that he would have had a “very different trial” if
   none of the alleged errors occurred. United States v. Moparty, 11 F.4th 280,
   299 (5th Cir. 2021).
          Lopez next argues that the district court erred in permitting him to
   proceed pro se. He contends that he did not unequivocally waive his right to
   counsel. He asserts that his waiver was conditioned upon the ability to
   prepare for trial by reviewing discovery in the law library and alleges that this
   condition was not met. We review challenges to the validity of a waiver of
   counsel de novo. United States v. Mesquiti, 854 F.3d 267, 271 (5th Cir. 2017).
          The record establishes that Lopez, despite being clearly informed that
   his decision to proceed pro se would affect his ability to prepare and did not
   guarantee sufficient law library access, persisted in his desire to proceed pro
   se. His supposed conditioning his request upon the satisfaction of a condition
   does not appear to have turned his waiver into an equivocal one. Despite his
   issues with the law library, he at no time disclaimed his desire to proceed pro
   se and asserted on the day of trial that he was prepared to proceed. Also, any
   attempt by Lopez to condition his waiver on access to the law library would
   have been misguided because he had no right to access a law library to prepare
   a pro se defense. See Kane v. Garcia Espitia, 546 U.S. 9, 10 (2005); Degrate
   v. Godwin, 84 F.3d 768, 769 (5th Cir. 1996). The record otherwise indicates
   that the district court—with cooperation from the Government and from jail
   representatives—sought to ensure that the purported condition was satisfied
   and that he was able to review the necessary discovery. Notably, he does not
   detail any shortcomings in his access to the materials that he needed for trial,
   discuss how any deficiencies affected his ability to prepare for trial, or explain
   how any inadequacy caused his waiver of counsel to be ineffective.

                                           4
Case: 22-50944      Document: 00516923735           Page: 5    Date Filed: 10/06/2023

                                     No. 22-50944

          Finally, Lopez maintains that the jury instructions did not require a
   finding that he knew that the conspiracy offenses involved the 500 grams of
   methamphetamine needed to subject him to a mandatory minimum sentence
   of 10 years in prison. Because he failed to preserve this claim, our review is
   for plain error. See United States v. Benitez, 809 F.3d 243, 250 (5th Cir. 2015);
   United States v. Creech, 408 F.3d 264, 267-68 (5th Cir. 2005).
          The record reflects that the jury necessarily concluded that Lopez was
   liable for more than 500 grams of methamphetamine under the conspiracy
   charges because that is the quantity with which he personally was involved.
   See Haines, 803 F.3d at 742. There was no likelihood that the jury based its
   quantity determinations on the conduct of others not reasonably foreseeable
   to Lopez because the only drugs at issue in this case were the more than 500
   grams of methamphetamine recovered from a car that Lopez sought to drive
   across the border. The jury found as part of the substantive offenses that he
   was individually responsible for 500 grams or more of methamphetamine and
   thus necessarily found that his role in the conspiracies, which he does not
   dispute that he entered, involved that amount. Also, he was sentenced well
   above the mandatory minimum sentence and there is no indication that the
   selection of sentence was affected by the mandatory minimum sentence. He
   thus has failed to demonstrate reversible plain error. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at
   135; Benitez, 809 F.3d at 250.
          The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                          5