UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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
crime of violence and aiding and abetting such conduct, in
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.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1827(d)(1) (2006), the district
court is required to appoint an interpreter if the witness
“speaks only or primarily a language other than English . . . so
as to inhibit such witness’ comprehension of questions and the
presentation of such testimony.” The use of an interpreter is a
matter committed to the trial court’s discretion. United
States v. Rodriguez, 424 F.2d 205, 206 (4th Cir. 1970). “This
rule is appropriate because the trial judge is in the best
position to assess a defendant’s or witness’ language usage,
comfort level and intelligibility.” United States v. Hasan, 609
F.3d 1121, 1127 (10th Cir. 2010) (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
decision made the trial fundamentally unfair. United States v.
Belfast, 611 F.3d 783, 821 (11th Cir. 2010).
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