Whether the district court violated Mr. Ayala-Alas's due process rights by requiring him to proceed to trial with only a Spanish interpreter despite his limited Spanish proficiency

: 1, Whether the district court violated Mr. Ayala-Alas's due process rights by requiring him to proceed to trial with only a Spanish interpreter despite his limited Spanish proficiency. 2. Whether the district court erred in denying a motion to compel discovery and then allowed late disclosure of critical evidence after jury selection. 3. Whether the sentencing enhancements for leadership and obstruction of justice were improperly applied without sufficient factual support. , , ~ 4. Whether the trial court's refusal to grant a duress instruction and its detial of a motion to continue deprived , Mr ‘Ayala-Alas of a fair trial. . 5. Whether the Government's improper closing arguments and burden-shifting statements prejudiced Mr. Ayala-Alas's right to a fair trial. . STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES | Did the district court error by forcing Jose Ayala-Alas to proceed through criminal proceedings to include trial with only a Spanish i interpreter rather than an interpreter in his native language of Tepehuan despite being told by a court interpreter and qualified language expert that Ayala-Alas understood Spanish at a 294 gra e academic level. Did the district. court commit error by denying Ayala-Alas Motio, to Compel Discover despite the fact the requested discovery were ite ; obtained from Ayala-Alas as articulated in Fed. Rule Crim. Pro. Rule 1 . Did the district court commit an error by permitting the government ) provide discovery on a terminal element of the charge — testing results Sf : : an alleged prohibited substance — after voir dire and jury selection? I = | the same light, did the district court commit error by not granti g : continuance for defense to have timely access to discovery to provi le adequate opportunity to review and prepare for trial in light bf forthcoming discovery as well as to have competency evaluated. , =. ~ Did the district court commit error by imposing an unreasonable sentence due to incorrect interpretation of the U.S. Sentenci ' . | 3 guidelines. Inherently therein, whether the district court violated hak : . Alas’ Due Process rights | by permitting the enhancements vn government meeting the preponderance of the evidence standard for the enhancement to be applied. Did the district court commit error by concluding USSG 2D1.1(b)(16) was applicable sentencing enhancement, In the same light, did the district court commit error by concluding the . applicability of USSG § 3B.1.1(b) was appropriate. Did the district court commit error by concluding Ayala-Alas committed perjury and oval subject to the enhancement of USSG § 3C1.1 with the district court using : such conclusory statements as to why this was enhancement was applicable “that doesn’t mean that they’re both truth or both false.” Did : the court error in not granting Ayala-Alas safety value reduction and . error in not granting Ayala-Alas request for reduction in sentencing calculations for duress. Did Government make inappropriate statements during closing. affecting the rights of Mr. Ayala-Alas and was there sufficient evidence for the jury to reach its conclusion of guilty. | ii.