US v. James Hooker

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:09-cr-00034-MSD-TEM-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998455898] [09-5137]

US v. James Hooker

Doc. 0

Case: 09-5137 Document: 24

Date Filed: 10/29/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-5137 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES E. HOOKER, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (4:09-cr-00034-MSD-TEM-1) Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: October 29, 2010

Before KING, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Ellenson, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Robert E. Bradenham, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-5137 Document: 24

Date Filed: 10/29/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: James E. Hooker appeals his convictions for one count of conspiracy to obstruct, delay and affect commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (2006), one count of robbery and aiding and abetting such conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951(a) & 2, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a of violence and aiding and abetting such conduct, in

crime

violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c) & 2 (West 2000 & Supp. 2010). Hooker argues that the district court abused its discretion in directing that an interpreter be used for two Korean

eyewitnesses.

Finding no error, we affirm. 28 U.S.C. to § 1827(d)(1) an (2006), if the the district witness

Under court is

required

appoint

interpreter

"speaks only or primarily a language other than English . . . so as to inhibit such witness' comprehension of questions and the presentation of such testimony." matter committed to the trial The use of an interpreter is a court's discretion. United "This best

States v. Rodriguez, 424 F.2d 205, 206 (4th Cir. 1970). rule is appropriate because the trial judge is in the

position to assess a defendant's or witness' language usage, comfort level and intelligibility." F.3d 1121, 1127 (10th Cir. 2010) United States v. Hasan, 609 (internal quotation marks

omitted).

In order to determine whether there was an abuse of

discretion, this court must determine whether the trial court's 2

Case: 09-5137 Document: 24

Date Filed: 10/29/2010

Page: 3

decision made the trial fundamentally unfair. Belfast, 611 F.3d 783, 821 (11th Cir. 2010).

United States v.

We conclude there was no abuse of discretion.

There

is nothing to suggest that the trial court's decision resulted in a trial that was fundamentally unfair. Accordingly, we

affirm Hooker's convictions and sentence.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED

3