United States v. Rubio
400 U.S. App. D.C. 313
| D.C. Cir. | 2012Background
- Rubio pled guilty to conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization under 18 U.S.C. § 2339B(a)(1).
- Plea agreement under Rule 11(c)(1)(C) stated the appropriate sentencing range was 132 to 144 months and bound the court if accepted.
- Rubio’s native language is Spanish; she received English and Spanish versions of the agreement and had an interpreter present at proceedings.
- At sentencing, the court sentenced Rubio to 138 months, within the agreed range, after confirming understanding and the factual basis.
- Rubio challenged the plea on appeal, arguing lack of knowing/intelligent entry and absence of translations for all documents.
- The district court record showed Spanish translations of the plea agreement and the statement of facts, and a Spanish interpreter at hearings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the plea knowingly and intelligently entered? | Rubio claims lack of understanding due to Spanish-first language. | Rubio asserts due process issues in plea-taking and translation. | No reversible error; plea knowingly and intelligently entered. |
| Did the district court fail to provide translations beyond those already given? | Equal protection/ due process required translations of all documents. | Court should not have to translate additional documents sua sponte. | Court did not abuse discretion; no plain error in not translating additional documents. |
| Are plain-error standards applicable given no objection below? | Plain-error review should not apply to this failure. | Plain-error standard governs unpreserved challenges. | Plain-error review applied; no reversible error found. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Celis, 608 F.3d 818 (D.C.Cir. 2010) (language translations discretionary based on need to understand charges and evidence)
- United States v. Gonzales, 339 F.3d 725 (8th Cir. 2003) (no constitutional right to all documents translated)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (Supreme Court 1985) (plea voluntariness assessed by counsel's effectiveness)
- United States v. Jones, 642 F.3d 1151 (D.C.Cir. 2011) (Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea binds court within agreed range)