{"id":1745,"date":"2017-02-13T23:15:51","date_gmt":"2017-02-13T23:15:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/?p=1745"},"modified":"2019-11-11T14:11:53","modified_gmt":"2019-11-11T19:11:53","slug":"spanish-language-jones-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/sentencing\/spanish-language-jones-act","title":{"rendered":"Jones Act Prevents Enhanced Sentence Based On Spanish Language Document"},"content":{"rendered":"\r\n
The Jones, Act, 48 U.S.C. \u00a7 864, requires that \u201c all pleadings and proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico … be conducted in the English language.\u201d Violations of the Jones Act \u201cwill constitute reversible error whenever the appellant can demonstrate that the untranslated evidence has the potential to affect the disposition of an issue raised on appeal.\u201d In Puerto Rican courts, a U.S. territory, Spanish language documents are common. At Julio Rom\u00e1n\u2013Huertas\u2019 sentencing, the Government and the Court relied on a Spanish language conviction record to enhance Rom\u00e1n\u2013Huertas base offense level under U.S.S.G. \u00a7 2K2.1(a)(4)(A), (2). Rom\u00e1n\u2013Huertas had a prior conviction in Puerto Rico under Article 406 of the Puerto Rico controlled substances act. But that law includes conduct that does not meet the definition of a \u201ccontrolled substance offense\u201d under the federal sentencing guidelines<\/a>. For example, a \u201ccontrolled substance offense\u201d under the Guidelines does not include possession offenses.The First Circuit court of appeals vacated and remanded for resentencing. \u201cBecause the district court relied only on the untranslated document to calculate Rom\u00e1n’s total offense level, that document \u201caffects the disposition\u201d of his appeal,\u201d the court wrote.<\/p>\r\n However, the court barred the Government from introducing new evidence on remand to support the enhancement.<\/p>\r\n \u201cWe have previously allowed additional fact-finding where the Government did not have an incentive to present evidence, but not \u2018where the government asked for the enhancement but failed to adduce sufficient proof for its imposition\u2014a 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 \u2018but failed to adduce sufficient proof for its imposition.\u2019 The Jones Act requires federal courts to conduct proceedings \u2018in the English language,\u2019 48 U.S.C. \u00a7 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. \u2018No party\u2014including the government\u2014is entitled to an unlimited number of opportunities to seek the sentence it desires.\u2019 On remand, therefore, the Government may not present new evidence of Rom\u00e1n’s prior conviction.\u201d See United States v. Rom\u00e1n\u2013Huertas<\/a>, No. 15-2019\u00a0(1st Cir. 2017).<\/p>\r\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The Jones, Act, 48 U.S.C. \u00a7 864, requires that \u201c all pleadings and proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico … be conducted in the English language.\u201d Violations of the Jones Act \u201cwill constitute reversible error whenever the appellant can demonstrate that the untranslated evidence has the potential to…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1746,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[314],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\n