United States v. Trevor Rodrigues, 21-3599

Background

Trevor Rodrigues, a native Portuguese speaker from Brazil with limited English reading/writing ability, arranged logistics for transporting 706 kg of cocaine; indicted for conspiracy to import cocaine and extradited to the U.S.
At arraignment Rodrigues stated he understood spoken English, had limited ability to read/write English, accepted appointed counsel, and pleaded not guilty.
Nearly a year later Rodrigues sought to change his plea; during the Rule 11 colloquy the court repeatedly checked his comprehension, explained terms (e.g., "conspiracy"), and paused when Rodrigues expressed confusion.
Rodrigues initially hesitated to accept the government's factual proffer but then agreed after clarification; his counsel confirmed Rodrigues understood the plea and entered it knowingly and voluntarily.
The district court accepted the guilty plea and sentenced Rodrigues to 120 months' imprisonment.
On appeal Rodrigues argued (1) his plea was involuntary due to limited English (Fifth Amendment due process) and (2) the Court Interpreters Act required the court to make an on‑the‑record finding or appoint an interpreter; he did not object at trial, so plain‑error review applied.

Issues

Issue	Rodrigues' Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether plea was knowing and voluntary given Rodrigues' limited English	Plea involuntary because Rodrigues had only modest English and needed interpreter/clarification	Colloquy shows Rodrigues understood spoken English, court addressed confusion, counsel confirmed understanding; plea was knowing	Court: No error — plea was knowing and voluntary; Rodrigues failed plain‑error showing
Whether Court Interpreters Act required the court to make an on‑the‑record finding or appoint an interpreter sua sponte	Statute requires courts to determine and state whether an interpreter is needed when defendant speaks primarily a non‑English language	Court reasonably inquired about comprehension during colloquy; no controlling Sixth Circuit rule requiring explicit finding; no plain error	Court: No plain error — judge appropriately addressed language issues and need not have made separate written finding

Key Cases Cited

Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970) (waiver of constitutional rights must be voluntary and knowing)
United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (plain‑error review: defendant must show reasonable probability he would not have pleaded guilty)
United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2008) (plain‑error test elements)
United States v. Catchings, 708 F.3d 710 (6th Cir. 2013) (Rule 11 colloquy confirms understanding of rights and factual basis)
United States v. Presley, 18 F.4th 899 (6th Cir. 2021) (appellate plain‑error review in plea context)
United States v. Hobbs, 953 F.3d 853 (6th Cir. 2020) (same)
United States v. Page, 520 F.3d 545 (6th Cir. 2008) (initial equivocation does not render plea involuntary when record shows later understanding)
United States v. Taylor, 627 F.3d 1012 (6th Cir. 2010) (upholding plea after defendant initially declined to admit facts but later agreed)
United States v. Markarian, 967 F.2d 1098 (6th Cir. 1992) (no plain error where court addressed language concerns and record revealed no obvious error)
Valladares v. United States, 871 F.2d 1564 (11th Cir. 1989) (Court Interpreters Act requires inquiry when court is aware of language difficulty)
United States v. Murguia‑Rodriguez, 815 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2016) (discussing duty to determine need for interpreter when difficulty apparent)
United States v. Black, 369 F.3d 1171 (10th Cir. 2004) (need to rephrase questions alone does not necessarily trigger duty to appoint interpreter)
United States v. Edouard, 485 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2007) (rephrasing requests alone do not mandate interpreter appointment)
United States v. Perez, 918 F.2d 488 (5th Cir. 1990) (interpreters: context determines whether statutory duty to appoint is triggered)