United States v. Agustin Vasquez-Olea

MEMORANDUM

The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Agent To-bar, a native Spanish speaker who was also fluent in English, and who had received additional training in Spanish translation from his employer, was qualified to verify the accuracy of the phone call translation. See United States v. Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d 959, 964-65 (9th Cir.2001). Even if the district court had erred in accepting Agent Tobar’s qualifications, any such error was harmless because Vasquez-Olea has not alleged any inaccuracy in the translation. See United States v. Pena-Espinoza, 47 F.3d 356, 360 (9th Cir.1995).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that the government’s notice stating that Agent Tobar would testify to the “substance” of the recorded phone call and providing a short summary of his knowledge of Spanish met the requirements of Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, because the notice adequately “deseribe[s] the witness’s opinions, the bases and reasons for those opinions, and the witness’s qualifications.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(a)(1)(G). Even if the notice had been defective, Vasquez-Olea has not shown a reasonable likelihood that…