Miguel Angel Gonzalez v. United States

Opinion by Judge BRUNETTI; Dissent by Judge REINHARDT

Federal prisoner Miguel Angel Gonzalez appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate or modify his 168-month sentence, which was imposed after his guilty pleas to one count of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a) and 846, and to two counts of using a telephone to commit a felony in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843 (b). In an unpublished disposition of the direct appeal, this court affirmed Gonzalez’s convictions and sentence. United States v. Forcelledo, Nos. 89-30335, 89-30336, 89-30337, 89-30338, 89-30340, 89-30342, 89-30343, 919 F.2d 146 (9th Cir. filed Nov. 20, 1990).

We review de novo the district court’s denial of Gonzalez’s § 2255 motion, see United States v. Angelone, 894 F.2d 1129, 1130 (9th Cir.1990), and we now affirm.

DISCUSSION

Gonzalez claims that he was denied his right to a qualified court interpreter under the Court Interpreters Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1827 (1988), and that the lack of adequate interpretation more generally deprived him of certain Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights because he did not understand the nature and cause of…

dissenting.

I dissent. Once again, “fairness and due process” take an unnecessary beating in the courts. How easy it would be to afford individuals the full rights Congress provided them. Instead, our careless and hasty treatment of criminal cases all too often makes it difficult for defendants to receive a fair trial.

Here, we narrowly, grudgingly, and erroneously apply the Court Interpreters Act, a statute designed to make certain that defendants understand what is happening to them during criminal proceedings. By reviewing the factual, but not the legal, basis for the district court’s decision, the majority has created the misleading impression that the district court’s casually, if not inadvertently, adopted approach to determining whether language difficulties inhibit a defendant’s understanding constitutes an appropriate application of the Act.

Nothing in the legislative history or statutory language supports the narrow application of the Act by the district court. While the majority reaches the correct result with regard to the procedural default issue, I cannot endorse its failure to review de novo the district court’s erroneous ruling. Although the majority’s opinion…

33 F.3d 1047 Miguel Angel GONZALEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee. Nos. 92-36820, 92-36821. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Nov. 3, 1993. Decided Aug. 11, 1994. Constance Crooker, Portland, OR, for petitioner-appellant. Charles F. Gorder, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Portland, OR, for respondent-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. Before: REINHARDT, BRUNETTI, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge BRUNETTI; Dissent by Judge REINHARDT BRUNETTI, Circuit Judge: 1 Federal prisoner Miguel Angel Gonzalez appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 motion to vacate or modify his 168-month sentence, which was imposed after his guilty pleas to one count of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. Secs. 841 (a) and 846, and to two counts of using a telephone to commit a felony in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 843 (b). In an unpublished disposition of the direct appeal, this court affirmed Gonzalez's convictions and sentence. United States v. Forcelledo, Nos. 89-30335, 89-30336, 89-30337, 89-30338, 89-30340,…