032263U.pdf   07/18/2006  United States  v.  Juan Gonzalez
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  03-2263
   Eastern District of Missouri   
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Riley, R. Arnold, and Melloy, Circuit Judges]
   Criminal case - Sentencing. On remand from the Supreme Court for
   reconsideration in light of Booker. For the court's earlier opinion in 
   the case, see U.S. v. Gonzalez, 365 F.3d 656 (8th Cir. 2004). Applying
   Pirani's plain error analysis, defendant was not entitled to Booker relief,
   as he failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the district court
   would have imposed a lesser sentence under an advisory guidelines scheme.
  
032263P.pdf   04/26/2004  United States  v.  Juan Gonzalez
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  03-2263
   Eastern District of Missouri   
   Criminal case - criminal law. Whenever parties intend to introduce 
   transcripts of translated conversations into evidence, they should try to 
   produce a stipulated transcript acceptable to both sides; when this cannot 
   be done, each side may introduce its own version and present evidence 
   supporting the accuracy of its version and attacking the accuracy of the 
   other side's; requiring defendant to wait until his case-in-chief to present 
   his expert testimony and his translations of the conversations was not a 
   reversible error; when the transcript contains foreign drug code, the party 
   introducing the transcript should ask the translator to identify the English 
   word that most closely captures the meaning of the foreign word; then, 
   the translator, if qualified as an expert in drug code, or another witness, 
   may testify as to his opinion as to what the code words mean in context of 
   the conversation; here, while the district court did not follow this 
   procedure, any error was harmless; the court suggests that the Seventh 
   Circuit's Model Jury Instruction 3.18 on Foreign Language 
   Recordings/Transcripts may be better suited to these situations than 
   Eighth Circuit Model Criminal Jury Instruction 2.06 (2003) which is 
   aimed at transcripts of English conversations; challenge to search warrant 
   rejected; evidence was sufficient to support drug convictions; no error in 
   imposing two-level enhancement for possession of a firearm under 
   Guidelines Sec. 2D1.1(b)