United States of America v. Heraclio Duran-Gonzalez

Holding: The Fifth Circuit affirmed the sentence, holding that the absence of an interpreter does not constitute a complete denial of counsel and thus cannot support a collateral attack on prior convictions used for sentencing enhancement.
Standard: Custis collateral attack standard
Vote: Panel Decision
Practical effect: Defendants cannot use the lack of an interpreter to collaterally attack prior convictions used to enhance sentences under the career-criminal guidelines.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed a career-criminal sentence enhancement despite the defendant's claim that prior convictions were invalid due to the lack of an interpreter. The court held that the absence of an interpreter does not constitute a complete denial of counsel and is therefore barred as a collateral attack under Supreme Court precedent.

Background

Heraclio Duran-Gonzalez pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute marijuana in 2014 and 2015. In 2017, he was arrested in Texas for possession with intent to distribute a large quantity of marijuana. During his 2018 sentencing, his counsel argued that a prior conviction was invalid because he was not provided with a Tarahumara interpreter, which he claimed denied him effective assistance of counsel. The district court denied a downward variance and imposed a sentence of 151 months and three years of supervised release.

The court’s reasoning

The court held that Duran-Gonzalez’s challenge constituted a collateral attack on his prior convictions. Under Custis v. United States, a defendant may collaterally attack a prior conviction used for sentencing enhancement only if the conviction resulted from a failure to appoint counsel at all. The court found that the absence of an interpreter does not amount to a complete denial of counsel. Therefore, the challenge was barred. The court also noted that the sentence was within the Guidelines range and presumed reasonable.

Regardless of the standard of review, this challenge constitutes a collateral attack barred by Supreme Court precedent, and we therefore AFFIRM his sentence.

United States v. Duran-Gonzalez, No. 22-51055 (5th Cir. June 2, 2026)

What it means going forward

Defendants cannot use the lack of an interpreter to collaterally attack prior convictions used to enhance sentences under the career-criminal guidelines.