United States v. Rivera-Clemente

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Rivera-Clemente. Read the opinion of the Court — 813 F.3d 43
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit·Decided February 17, 2016·No. 13-2275E·Errata

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 13-2275

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

JOEL MANUEL RIVERA-CLEMENTE,

Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued February 10, 2016, is amended as follows:

On page 10, replace footnote 6 with "The defendant also argues for the first time on appeal for error in the court’s failure to put his interpreter under oath during the change-of- plea and sentencing hearings. We reject the defendant's argument because he neither raised this issue before the district court, nor does he cite to any evidence that the oath was not administered at another time, as is allowed. See United States v. Solorio, 669 F.3d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 2012) (stating some courts "administer the oath to staff and contract interpreters once, and keep it on file") (quoting 5 Guide to Judiciary Policy § 350(b) (2010))."

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. Rivera-Clemente, (1st Cir. 2016).

United States v. Rivera-Clemente (United States v. Rivera-Clemente) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Solorio
669 F.3d 943 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)