NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OCT 31 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-30365
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:10-cr-05222-RJB-1
v. MEMORANDUM*
BERNARDINO RAMIREZ-SANTOS
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted*** October 11, 2011
Seattle, Washington
Before: KOZINSKI and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and BURNS,** District Judge.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Larry Alan Burns, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) (2)
Ramirez-Santos appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a new
trial after a jury convicted him of violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
We review for plain error because Ramirez-Santos did not raise his claims at
trial. United States v. Atcheson, 94 F.3d 1237, 1245 (9th Cir. 1996). Under this
standard, we reverse “only if an error was obvious, affected substantial rights, and
a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.” United States v. Doss, 630 F.3d
1181, 1193 (9th Cir. 2011).
Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (1976), disposes of Ramirez-Santos’ claim
that his Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated because he wore his prison
clothes during trial. Ramirez-Santos was not compelled to wear prison clothes.
Rather, he was offered civilian clothes by his lawyer before trial but refused them.
His voluntary choice not to wear civilian clothes that were offered “is sufficient to
negate the presence of compulsion.” Id. at 513.
The record establishes that Ramirez-Santos was not unconstitutionally
denied a Mixteco interpreter. Two Spanish-speaking interpreters who assisted
Ramirez-Santos while he was in custody and during court proceedings stated that
he spoke fluent Spanish and readily understood what was said to him in Spanish.
Moreover, Ramirez-Santos had participated in several previous state court criminal
proceedings and in immigration proceedings using Spanish interpreters. The
2
district court did not err in rejecting the defendant’s bare claim that he required a
Mixteco interpreter.
Finally, the district court did not plainly err in finding that Ramirez-Santos
made a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent decision not to testify. United States v.
Joelson, 7 F.3d 174, 177 (9th Cir. 1993). The record establishes that Ramirez-
Santos’ counsel advised him not to testify, and Ramirez-Santos is presumed to
assent to that tactical decision. Id. In addition, the district court engaged Ramirez-
Santos in an extended colloquy concerning his right to testify, at the end of which
Ramirez-Santos made the choice not to do so.
AFFIRMED.
3