Note
Puerto Rico Federal Judges Can't Raise a Sentence Using Untranslated Spanish Records
Under the Jones Act, federal court in Puerto Rico must be conducted in English, so a judge cannot raise a sentence based on an untranslated Spanish record.
Written by Brandon Sample · Updated · Filed under Sentencing articles
A federal judge in Puerto Rico cannot raise your sentence based on a Spanish-language document that was never translated into English. The First Circuit held exactly that in United States v. Román–Huertas, and it also barred the government from trying again with new evidence.
The Jones Act, 48 U.S.C. § 864, requires that "all pleadings and proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico" be "conducted in the English language." Breaking that rule is reversible error when the untranslated evidence could affect the outcome of an issue on appeal.
What Happened in Román–Huertas
Spanish-language records are common in Puerto Rico. At Julio Román–Huertas's sentencing for being a felon with a gun, the government and the court relied on a Spanish-language record of his prior conviction. They used it to raise his base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A).
His prior conviction was under Article 406 of Puerto Rico's controlled substances law. That law covers some conduct that does not count as a "controlled substance offense" under the federal sentencing guidelines. For example, simple possession does not count.
Why the Sentence Was Vacated
The First Circuit vacated the sentence and sent the case back for resentencing. Because the district court relied only on the untranslated document to set his offense level, that document "affects the disposition" of his appeal, the court wrote.
The court also barred the government from offering new evidence of the prior conviction on remand. The government had asked for the higher offense level and had every reason to support it with English-language evidence. The court explained:
"We have previously allowed additional fact-finding where the Government did not have an incentive to present evidence, but not 'where the government asked for the enhancement but failed to adduce sufficient proof for its imposition—a situation in which there would not likely be reason to permit a second bite at the apple.' Here, the Government asked for a total offense level of seventeen 'but failed to adduce sufficient proof for its imposition.' The Jones Act requires federal courts to conduct proceedings 'in the English language,' 48 U.S.C. § 864, and our case law has reaffirmed this many times. The Government, therefore, had every incentive to ensure that the district court relied only on evidence presented in the English language. 'No party—including the government—is entitled to an unlimited number of opportunities to seek the sentence it desires.' On remand, therefore, the Government may not present new evidence of Román's prior conviction."
See United States v. Román–Huertas, No. 15-2109 (1st Cir. Feb. 9, 2017).
For anyone sentenced in the District of Puerto Rico, the practical lesson is simple: check whether every prior-conviction record in the PSR (the presentence report the judge relies on) has an English translation. If it doesn't, the defense should object before or at sentencing so the issue is preserved for appeal.
Facing a federal sentence? Book a consultation to talk it through with Brandon Sample.