Whether the District Court abused its discretion in failing to provide a Spanish interpreter during critical stages of the defendant's defense

QUESTIONS PRESENTED: , 1) Whether the District Court abused it's discretion after ruling that Juan Lozano, (a limited English Proficiency defendant), required a Spanish Interpreter. Upon this appointwhent the Court failure to have the Interpreter present during the most critical stages of Lozano defense, such as every court proceeding, every meeting with defense counsel, for review and execution of key documents, namely the PSI, police reports, written waiver of Speedy Trial, and plea agreements. Does this error constitute a violation of Lozano's Sixth Amendment Right to Effectiwe Assistance of Counsel? . . 2) Whether the District Court abused it's discretion by imposing a sentence for the Charge of Terrorism, which was not imcluded in . the original charging documents, nor was the defendant indicted for such a charge, and the Court did not prove that the defendant's actions reached the level justifying the crime imposed? : 3)})Whether the sentence rendered, was invalid and illegal because « an Interpreter was not provided to assist the Defendant, despite a standing Court Order for an Interpreter and no waiver of an Interpreter by the défendant, in writing or on the record, and the sentence also being illegal due to impermissible consideration of improper information, requiring vacation of the sentence and an Order for re~sentencing. | | | |