United States v. Benitez-Arzate , 203 F. App'x 427 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4277
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CESAR BENITEZ-ARZATE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior
District Judge. (2:01-cr-00013-REM)
Submitted: September 29, 2006 Decided: October 16, 2006
Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian J. Kornbrath, Federal Public Defender, Clarksburg, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Rita R. Valdrini, Acting United States
Attorney, Stephen D. Warner, Assistant United States Attorney,
Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Cesar Benitez-Arzate pled guilty to conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute and to distribute 500 grams or more of
methamphetamine. On appeal he alleges that his guilty plea is
invalid because his interpreter was not certified under the Court
Interpreters Act, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1827-28 (West 1994 & Supp. 2006).
For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Benitez-Arzate did not object to the non-certification of
his Spanish interpreter. Indeed, Benitez-Arzate chose to use the
services of the very interpreter of whom he now complains in lieu
of the court-certified interpreter originally provided to him by
the court and used at his arraignment. We find no plain error in
the district court’s decision to allow Benitez-Arzate to use the
services of the interpreter obtained by his defense counsel.
United States v. Paz, 981 F.2d 199, 201 (5th Cir. 1992) (providing
review standard for claim of an uncertified interpreter under the
Court Interpreters Act); United States v. Gonzales, 339 F.3d 725,
728-29 (8th Cir. 2003) (same).
Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 2 -