United States v. Bernardino Ramirez-Santos

MEMORANDUM

Ramirez-Santos appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a new trial after a jury convicted him of violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (a).

We review for plain error because Ramirez-Santos did not raise his claims at trial. United States v. Atcheson, 94 F.3d 1237, 1245 (9th Cir.1996). Under this standard, we reverse “only if an error was obvious, affected substantial rights, and a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.” United States v. Doss, 630 F.3d 1181, 1193 (9th Cir.2011).

Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 , 96 S.Ct. 1691 , 48 L.Ed.2d 126 (1976), disposes of Ramirez-Santos’ claim that his Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated because he wore his prison clothes during trial. Ramirez-Santos was not compelled to wear prison clothes. Rather, he was offered civilian clothes by his lawyer before trial but refused them. His voluntary choice not to wear civilian clothes that were offered “is sufficient to negate the presence of compulsion.” Id. at 513 , 96 S.Ct. 1691 .

The record establishes that Ramirez-Santos was not unconstitutionally denied a Mixteco interpreter. Two Spanish-speaking interpreters who assisted Ramirez-Santos while he was in custody and…