United States v. Amos Christolin

USCA11 Case: 23-13672 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 1 of 42

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-13672

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

AMOS CHRISTOLIN,

a.k.a. Patizan,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

D.C. Docket No. 1:18-cr-00392-AT-JKL-2

____________________

Before JORDAN, LAGOA, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In August of 2017, Customs and Border Protection officers

uncovered a drug smuggling operation involving the shipment of

bricks of cocaine from Haiti to Miami, and then to Atlanta, in tubs

USCA11 Case: 23-13672 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 2 of 42

2 Opinion of the Court 23-13672

of butter. The officers suspected that Amos Christolin was involved

in the scheme.

Upon his arrest for his participation in the scheme, Mr.

Christolin was advised of his rights and interviewed by Special

Agent Jacque Philippe from Homeland Security Investigations. Be-

cause Mr. Christolin’s primary language is Haitian Creole, he was

advised of his rights and interviewed in Haitian Creole. SA

Philippe, who speaks Haitian Creole, acted as a translator. 1

In challenging his subsequent convictions for federal narcot-

ics offenses, Mr. Christolin makes several arguments. First, he as-

serts that he unequivocally invoked his right to remain silent dur-

ing his interview with SA Philippe by saying, “No, I’m willing to

listen,” when asked if he wanted to speak with the agents. As a re-

sult, he says his subsequent incriminating statements should have

been suppressed. Second, he contends that his waiver of rights was

not knowing and voluntary due to SA Philippe’s limited fluency in

Haitian Creole. Third, he maintains that the introduction of his

statements from his interview with SA Philippe violated the Con-

frontation Clause because they were introduced by a different law

enforcement agent at trial.

1 SA Philippe’s level of proficiency in Haitian Creole has been the source of

contention between the parties throughout this case. SA Philippe’s transla-

tions of Mr. Christolin’s rights and Mr. Christolin’s statements were contested

at a suppression hearing and now again here on appeal.

USCA11 Case: 23-13672 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 3 of 42

23-13672 Opinion of the Court 3

I

During a random search of cargo arriving in Miami from

Haiti in August of 2017, CBP officers uncovered tubs of butter that

contained bricks of cocaine. The officers recovered 28 kilograms of

cocaine, and reached out to contacts at HSI to relay what they had

found and to hand off the investigation.

A

HSI agents took over the investigation and conducted a con-

trolled delivery to Vital Joseph using some of the seized cocaine.

As part of the scheme, Mr. Joseph would use his connections in

Haiti to import cocaine into the United States through Miami using

tubs of butter to conceal the drugs as they passed through customs.

Mr. Joseph would deliver the shipments to other coconspirators

who would then deliver them to their ultimate destination for dis-

tribution. HSI arrested Mr. Joseph following the controlled deliv-

ery.

The agents seized a cellphone from Mr. Joseph and another

from his bedroom. The agents had Mr. Joseph make a call with one

of these phones to his contact in Haiti to discuss their recent ship-

ment of cocaine. During that call, Mr. Joseph confirmed the 28-kil-

ogram quantity using coded language.

Following the call, Mr. Joseph received a message from his

Haitian contact that listed three names and associated phone num-

bers, including “Patizan,” who had the phone number (786) 203-

USCA11 Case: 23-13672 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 4 of 42

4 Opinion of the Court 23-13672

2316. Each name in the message was accompanied by a number,

the total of which added up to 28. 2

The agents understood the message to be instructions for

the drivers who would pick up the drugs, as well as the amount of

cocaine that each driver was to receive. Using immigration paper-

work, DMV records, AT&T subscriber data, and other investiga-

tory techniques, HSI was able to trace the 2316 phone number to

Mr. Christolin.

In November of 2018, HSI agents arrested Mr. Christolin at

his home for his role in the drug-trafficking operation. SA Philippe

conducted the interview in Haitian Creole as the only agent profi-

cient in the language on the scene.

SA Philippe is a “heritage learner” of Haitian Creole, having

been born in the United States to parents from Haiti and having

grown up speaking Haitian Creole as a first language. SA Philippe

tested his proficiency in Haitian Creole while employed by HSI and

received a score of “3.” It is not clear what the maximum score on

the exam is and where on the range SA Philippe falls, but a score of

“2” is passing. SA Philippe’s score qualified him to receive addi-

tional compensation from HSI. He estimated that he has served as

2 Mr. Joseph testified at Mr. Christolin’s trial and confirmed that the coded

language in the message was in reference to the 28 kilograms of cocaine, that

Mr. Christolin was “Patizan,” and that he had delivered multiple shipments of

cocaine to Mr. Christolin.

USCA11 Case: 23-13672 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 5 of 42

23-13672 Opinion of the Court 5

a translator in about 50 interviews as an agent for HSI and has ad-

vised suspects of their rights in Haitian Creole between 20 to 30

times.

B

SA Philippe used a Haitian Creole statement of rights form,

which translates the Miranda rights, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S.

436 (1966), into Haitian Creole. SA Philippe had Mr. Christolin ini-

tial after each of the lines explaining his rights to indicate that he

understood them.

While reading from the form, SA Philippe said the following

in Haitian Creole: “Before I interview you, it’s my duty to inform

you of your rights. Do you understand what I just read?” Mr. Chris-

tolin responded, “Yes.” SA Philippe then asked Mr. Christolin

whether he could read. Mr. Christolin responded that he could and

then read the first line of the form out loud in Haitian Creole. SA

Philippe again confirmed that Mr. Christolin understood that line

and directed him to initial the line to memorialize that he under-

stood it. Mr. Christolin did so.

SA Philippe then read the next line on the form in Haitian

Creole, which said: “You have the right to remain silent and decline

from making any statement.” SA Philippe asked Mr. Christolin if

he understood, to which Mr. Christolin responded, “Yeah.”

SA Philippe continued with the next right: “Any statement

you made can be used against you in Courts or any legal institu-

tion.” SA Philippe then paused and told Mr. Christolin, “My—Cre-

ole is not very strong,” and asked Mr. Christolin to read the line

USCA11 Case: 23-13672 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 6 of 42

6 Opinion of the Court 23-13672

himself. Mr. Christolin read out loud, “Any statement you made

can be used against you in Courts or in any legal institution.” SA

Philippe asked Mr. Christolin if he understood, and Mr. Christolin

responded, “I don’t fully understand this. So, you can, you can use

any statement . . .” At this point, SA Philippe paused the interview

and obtained an English language version of the advice of rights

form as an aid for himself, and told Mr. Christolin in Haitian Cre-

ole, “this just said . . . everything you tell us . . . we can use in

Courts, when we—are in Courts or when we’re in front of a

Judge.” Mr. Christolin responded “OK.”

SA Philippe proceeded to the next line: “[Y]ou have the right

to an attorney before you make any statements and before you an-

swer any questions they may ask you when they are interviewing

you.” Pausing again, he corrected himself and said “—interrogating

you. Do you understand?” Mr. Christolin responded, “Yeah.”

Then SA Philippe explained: “You have the right to an attor-

ney . . . a Federal Commissioner, or a US Court may provide you

with one, if you cannot afford one yourself. . . . if you cannot afford

an attorney, . . . one will be provided to you, if you want.” Mr.

Christolin once again confirmed that he understood. SA Philippe

advised Mr. Christolin, in Haitian Creole, “[i]f you’re willing to im-

mediately answer all the questions you are asked . . . without an

attorney present with you, you can, at any time request the inter-

view is stopped and consult an attorney. This is your right. Do you

understand what that says?” Mr. Christolin responded, “Yeah.” SA

Philippe then paraphrased, “So, when we are talking to you, at any

USCA11 Case: 23-13672 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 7 of 42

23-13672 Opinion of the Court 7

times, you can tell, um, you want an attorney, and then we will

stop talking to you.” Mr. Christolin responded, “OK.”

Moving on, SA Philippe then said: “You also have the right

to waive the assistance of an attorney, and also the right to remain

silent. Also, if you are willing, you may make all your statement

without consulting an attorney. Just say whether you understand?”

Mr. Christolin responded, “No, do I put initial?” SA Philippe re-

plied, “No, you will initial here to state if you understand.” Mr.

Christolin responded, “Uh, OK,” and initialed the form.

Finally, SA Philippe concluded with the following exchange

with Mr. Christolin. “Now, I will ask you if you wish to speak with

us. We’ll explain to you what’s going on. You can give us, give,

give us back your response.” Mr. Christolin responded, “All right!”

SA Philippe asked, “So, are you willing to speak with us?” And Mr.

Christolin responded “No, I’m willing to listen!” SA Philippe again

clarified, “No, I am asking if you want to speak with us. You will

need to sign—if you’re willing to speak with us, you will sign here,

to state that you are willing to speak with us. Um, and then, I will

sign, um, another person will sign. And then, like I said, you can

begin speaking with us, anytime you can stop speaking with us, if

you want to.” Mr. Christolin then said, “Yeah. OK.” Clarifying one

last time, SA Philippe asked “So, are you willing to speak with us?”

Mr. Christolin replied, “Yeah.”

Mr. Christolin then spoke with SA Philippe and other HSI

agents and made several statements, some of which the govern-

ment used at trial. During the interview, Mr. Christolin admitted

USCA11 Case: 23-13672 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 8 of 42

8 Opinion of the Court 23-13672

to using the alias “Patizan,” admitted that the 2316 phone number

was his, and that he met someone who met the description of an-

other individual who transported drugs to the Atlanta area.

C

Before trial, Mr. Christolin moved to exclude these state-

ments. A magistrate judge held an evidentiary hearing and issued a

report and recommendation. The magistrate judge determined

that Mr. Christolin’s waiver of rights was uncoerced, knowing, and

intelligent. The magistrate judge also found that Mr. Christolin did

not unequivocally invoke his right to remain silent. With respect

to Mr. Christolin’s understanding of SA Philippe’s Haitian Creole,

the magistrate judge found that “[i]t is also clear from the interview

itself that Mr. Christolin understood what SA Philippe was saying.”

D.E. 165 at 28 n.17. The transcript of the interview, moreover,

“show[ed] Mr. Christolin repeatedly conversing with the agents in

English without translation.” Id. at 22.

The district court adopted the report and recommendation

but noted the case presented a closer question than the one ad-

dressed in United States v. Youte, 769 F. App’x 685 (11th Cir. 2019),

which also involved SA Philippe’s Haitian Creole translations of

Miranda rights. The court was perturbed by the “more troubling

course of interrogation than occurred in Youte” because Mr. Chris-

tolin had “affirmatively asserted his intent not to speak – and only

to listen to what the officers had to say.” D.E. 189 at 8. The court

ultimately concluded, however, that it could not say that Mr. Chris-

tolin unequivocally communicated his refusal to agree to speak

USCA11 Case: 23-13672 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 9 of 42

23-13672 Opinion of the Court 9

with the agents or to proceed with the interview based on the rec-

ord. See id. at 8–9.

Before trial, Mr. Christolin again sought to exclude SA

Philippe’s translations of his statements, which the government

sought to introduce at trial. Mr. Christolin argued in his motion in

limine that SA Philippe’s repetition of his statements while translat-

ing were “not verbatim and commutative.” D.E. 205 at 2. When

paired with the certified translation, Mr. Christolin argued that SA

Philippe’s translations were “[a]t best . . . duplicative” and could

“potentially create confusion for jurors.” Id.

The government opposed Mr. Christolin’s motion and re-

sponded that carving out SA Philippe’s translations would create

confusion by removing key context from the interview. The gov-

ernment asked the district court to allow SA Philippe’s translations

but with a limiting instruction stating, “to the extent that these

statements differ from the translations next to each Haitian Creole

statement, [the jurors] should rely on the latter.” D.E. 284 at 732–

33.

While discussing the matter with the parties, the district

court raised a separate potential Confrontation Clause issue. The

district court referred the parties to § 341 of Don Samuel’s Eleventh

Circuit Criminal Handbook. See D.E. 283 at 101. This portion of

the Handbook reads, in relevant part, as follows:

In 2013, the Eleventh Circuit considered a case in

which the defendant was stopped at the border and

interviewed by a Customs and Border Patrol agent.

USCA11 Case: 23-13672 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 10 of 42

10 Opinion of the Court 23-13672

Because the defendant did not speak English, an inter-

preter was used. At trial, the CBP agent testified

about what the interpreter said. The Eleventh Circuit

held that this violated the Confrontation

Clause. United States v. Charles, 722 F.3d 1319 (11th

Cir. 2013) . . . Problems under the Confrontation

Clause may arise when a translated transcript is pre-

sented to the jury. The translator’s implicit statement

that the translation is an accurate translation of the

participants’ recorded statements would qualify as

“testimonial” under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S.

36, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004). If another

witness testified, however, such as the case agent,

that the translation is accurate, this would be the only

testimony heard by the jury and would alleviate any

Confrontation concerns. United States v. Curbelo, 726

F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2013).

1 Don Samuel, Eleventh Circuit Criminal Handbook § 341 (2025).

Mr. Christolin then reiterated the arguments in his motion

in limine—i.e., that the certified translations next to SA Philippe’s

translations were repetitive or cumulative. See D.E. 283 at 102. The

government repeated its preference for a curative instruction be-

cause the interview would be turned into “Swiss cheese” without

SA Philippe’s own questions and statements as context. See id. at

104.

The district court concluded the discussion by saying that it

considered the issue to be preserved but wanted to see if the certi-

fied translator would testify “to address any Confrontation Clause

USCA11 Case: 23-13672 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 11 of 42

23-13672 Opinion of the Court 11

issue” or if the parties were “waiving having her here.” Id. at 105.

The government responded that there was a stipulation concern-

ing the certified transcript and that transcripts such as these were

“admitted all the time.” Id. After some more discussion, the court

ultimately adopted the government’s proposed solution of allow-

ing the jury to see SA Philippe’s translations with a limiting instruc-

tion that the certified translation was to be relied on in case of a

conflict between the two.

The jury found Mr. Christolin guilty of conspiracy to distrib-

ute a controlled substance involving at least five kilograms or more

of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of co-

caine. See D.E. 219. The district court sentenced him to 120

months’ imprisonment. See D.E. 268.

II

“The denial of a motion to suppress is reviewed under a

mixed standard. We review the district court’s findings of fact for

clear error and the application of law to those facts de novo.” United

States v. Ford, 784 F.3d 1386, 1391 (11th Cir. 2015).

Violations of the Confrontation Clause typically warrant de

novo review. See United States v. Gari, 572 F.3d 1352, 1361 (11th Cir.

2009). But if no Confrontation Clause objection is lodged in the dis-

trict court, we review only for plain error. See United States v.

Jiminez, 564 F.3d 1280, 1286 (11th Cir. 2009).

USCA11 Case: 23-13672 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 12 of 42

12 Opinion of the Court 23-13672

III

Mr. Christolin argues that he unequivocally invoked his

right to remain silent when he said, “No, I’m willing to listen,”

when the agents asked if he would speak with them. In his view,

the interview should have ceased at that point and without any fur-

ther questioning by the agents. He also maintains that his waiver

was not knowing and voluntary. We disagree on both points.

A

The Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444,

requires that an individual undergoing an in-custody interrogation

be warned that he has the right to remain silent, that any statement

he makes may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a

right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed.

But law enforcement officers have no duty to stop their question-

ing if the subject’s invocation of Fifth Amendment rights is ambig-

uous or equivocal. See Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 461

(1994). “A suspect must articulate his desire to cut off questioning

with sufficient clarity that a reasonable police officer in the circum-

stances would understand the statement to be an assertion of the

right to remain silent.” Coleman v. Singletary, 30 F.3d 1420, 1424

(11th Cir. 1994).

To expressly invoke the Fifth Amendment’s protections, a

person must clearly assert that he wants to remain silent or that he

does not want to talk with the police. See Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560

U.S. 370, 382 (2010) (“Had he made either of these simple, unam-

biguous statements, he would have invoked his right to cut off

USCA11 Case: 23-13672 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 13 of 42

23-13672 Opinion of the Court 13

questioning. . . . Here he did neither, so he did not invoke his right

to remain silent.”). We have declined to establish a per se rule that

a suspect’s use of “No,” when asked if he wants to talk to a police

officer, means that the officer cannot go forward with questioning.

See Medina v. Singletary, 59 F.3d 1095, 1104–05 (11th Cir. 1995). We

have also held that saying, “No, I’m not going to waive my rights,”

is insufficient to invoke the Fifth Amendment’s protections when

other ambiguous statements follow. See United States v. Acosta, 363

F.3d 1141, 1154 (11th Cir. 2004).

Mr. Christolin’s invocation was not unequivocal or unam-

biguous. Mr. Christolin was read his rights from an advice of rights

form, and indicated that he understood his rights along the way by

placing his initials next to each right as they were read to him. After

being advised of his rights, when he was asked if he wanted to speak

with the agents, he said “No, I’m willing to listen.” This response

did not make it clear if Mr. Christolin wished to remain silent; he

may have wanted to hear what the agents had to say before he

made up his mind or started answering their questions. See Acosta,

363 F.3d at 1155 (“[T]wo reasonable, competing interpretations is

the very definition of ambiguity.”) (citation omitted).

The Ninth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Washington,

462 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2006), is instructive. In Washington, the sub-

ject was read his Miranda rights, just as Mr. Christolin was. He was

then asked if he wished to speak to the agents, just as Mr. Christolin

was, and replied, “I agree to listen.” The Ninth Circuit held that

this statement “cannot possibly be construed as a request for the

USCA11 Case: 23-13672 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 14 of 42

14 Opinion of the Court 23-13672

FBI agents not to speak to him or for him to remain silent” and that

“[h]e simply did not invoke his right to remain silent.” Id. at 1134.

We conclude that there is no legal daylight between “No,

I’m willing to listen” and “I agree to listen.” Addition or subtraction

of “No” does not change the import of the sentence in any mean-

ingful way. Moreover, we agree with the Ninth Circuit that such a

statement is not an unequivocal or unambiguous invocation of the

Fifth Amendment’s protections. And we have long said that agents

in this context have a right to clarify the interviewee’s wishes by

asking follow-up questions. See Nash v. Estelle, 597 F.2d 513, 517 (5th

Cir. 1979).

B

Mr. Christolin also argues that his waiver of rights was not

knowing and voluntary due to SA Phillipe’s limited Haitian Creole

abilities. Miranda allows a suspect to waive his rights after being

advised of them. See 384 U.S. at 444. But that waiver must be vol-

untary, knowing, and intelligent. See id. The inquiry for determin-

ing if a waiver is voluntary, knowing, and intelligent is twofold. See

Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 421 (1986).

First, the waiver must be “voluntary in the sense that it was

the product of a free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation,

coercion, or deception.” Id. We consider the totality of the circum-

stances as part of this inquiry including lack of education, or his low

intelligence, the lack of any advice to the subject of his constitu-

tional rights, the length of detention, the repeated and prolonged

nature of the questioning, and the use of physical punishment such

USCA11 Case: 23-13672 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 15 of 42

23-13672 Opinion of the Court 15

as the deprivation of food or sleep. See United States v. Bernal-Beni-

tez, 594 F.3d 1303, 1319 (11th Cir. 2010).

Second, the waiver must be “made with a full awareness of

both the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences

of the decision to abandon it.” Burbine, 475 U.S. at 421. “Even if a

defendant’s statement is voluntary and not coerced, the prosecu-

tion must make the additional showing that the accused under-

stood these [Miranda] rights.” Hall v. Thomas, 611 F.3d 1259, 1285

(11th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted) (alterations in original). “Only if

the totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation re-

veal both an uncoerced choice and the requisite level of compre-

hension may a court properly conclude that the Miranda rights

have been waived.” Burbine, 475 U.S. at 421. (internal quotation

marks and citations omitted).

Mr. Christolin’s waiver was voluntary. Although Mr. Chris-

tolin argues that SA Philippe pushed him to speak by using lan-

guage that was more of a command than a question, the record

does not support that contention. As the district court noted,

“[w]hen [Mr.] Christolin agreed to sign the waiver form and pro-

ceed to the substantive interview, neither the audio recording nor

the transcript reflect a threatening tonality or verbiage on the part

of the officers.” D.E. 189 at 9. That finding is plausible, and there-

fore not clearly erroneous. See Cooper v. Harris, 581 U.S. 285, 293

(2017).

The transcript supports the district court’s finding that SA

Philippe was not pressuring Mr. Christolin but instead clarifying

USCA11 Case: 23-13672 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 16 of 42

16 Opinion of the Court 23-13672

that he would need to sign the form if he wanted to speak to the

agents. SA Philipe even reiterated that the interview would stop at

any time Mr. Christolin chose. Absent any physical or psychologi-

cal pressure or some other indicia of overreach to elicit the state-

ments, we are satisfied about the voluntariness of Mr. Christolin’s

statements. See Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 at 421. See also Colorado v. Con-

nelly, 479 U.S. 157, 170 (1986) (“The sole concern of the Fifth

Amendment, on which Miranda was based, is governmental coer-

cion. . . . The voluntariness of a waiver of this privilege has always

depended on the absence of police overreaching[.]”).

Mr. Christolin next argues that his waiver of rights was not

knowing due to SA Philippe’s lack of mastery of Haitian Creole.

The Fifth Amendment, however, only requires that a suspect com-

prehend “the full panoply of rights set out in the Miranda warnings

and of the potential consequences of a decision to relinquish

them.” Burbine, 475 U.S. at 422. “Once it is determined that a sus-

pect’s decision not to rely on his rights was uncoerced, that he at

all times knew he could stand mute and request a lawyer, and that

he was aware of the [government’s] intention to use his statements

to secure a conviction, the analysis is complete and the waiver is

valid as a matter of law.” Id. at 422–23. As we held in Youte, SA

Philippe’s translations to Mr. Christolin, although maybe inele-

gant, were constitutionally sufficient because they reasonably con-

veyed the relevant rights. See Youte, 769 F. App’x at 687–688. And

USCA11 Case: 23-13672 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 17 of 42

23-13672 Opinion of the Court 17

because Mr. Christolin repeatedly told the interviewers that he un-

derstood his rights, we conclude that his waiver was knowing. 3

Mr. Christolin further asserts that he did not knowingly

waive his rights. It is true that he expressed confusion about his

rights when he said, “I don’t fully understand this. So, you can, you

can use any statement . . .” But SA Philippe cured that confusion

by going over his rights with him again using an English advice of

rights form, which SA Philippe used as a translation aid for himself,

so that he could translate the rights from English to Haitian Creole.

After doing so, Mr. Christolin initialed that he understood.

Mr. Christolin maintains that SA Philippe’s explanation was

deficient because SA Philippe used some English words in his trans-

lation rather than Haitian Creole. Mr. Christolin points out that SA

Philippe did not translate the word “used” (in “[a]ny statement you

made can be used against you in Courts or any legal institution”)

into Haitian Creole. This, Mr. Christolin says, rendered the Mi-

randa warnings deficient because he did not know what “used”

meant. We are not persuaded. Elsewhere in the interview, when

SA Philippe or other agents said the word “used” in English as op-

posed to Haitian Creole, Mr. Christolin had no trouble understand-

ing. For example:

SA Devane: Who uses this phone?

Mr. Christolin: Me.

3 A chart that contains the full translation of Mr. Christolin’s interview by SA

Philippe, side-by-side with the certified translation is appended to this opinion.

USCA11 Case: 23-13672 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 18 of 42

18 Opinion of the Court 23-13672

SA Ramirez: Anybody else? Other people?

SA Devane: Anyone but you? Can you—ask him that

in Creole?

SA Philippe: Who else uses this phone?

Mr. Christolin: Just me.

App. D.E. 44 at 105.

C

Finally, Mr. Christolin argues that introduction of SA

Philippe’s translations violated the Confrontation Clause because

SA Philippe did not testify at trial. But before we decide this ques-

tion, we must determine if this argument was properly preserved

for appeal.

Mr. Christolin did not mention the Confrontation Clause in

his motion in limine or at the hearing on the motion. But he makes

two arguments in support of his contention that the Confrontation

Clause argument was preserved. First, he says that under Federal

Rule of Criminal Procedure 51, he preserved the Confrontation

Clause issue for appeal by asking for relief in the form of having SA

Philippe’s statements redacted. Mr. Christolin cites Holguin-Her-

nandez v. United States, 589 U.S. 169 (2020), for this proposition. Sec-

ond, Mr. Christolin claims that during trial the district court con-

sidered the Confrontation Clause issue with respect to SA

Philippe’s translations such that it was properly preserved. See D.E.

283 at 101.

USCA11 Case: 23-13672 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 19 of 42

23-13672 Opinion of the Court 19

First, Mr. Christolin overreads Holguin-Hernandez. In that

case, the defendant argued in the district court that he should re-

ceive either no additional prison time for a violation of supervised

release or that any sentence should be less than 12 months long.

After receiving a sentence of 12 months, he appealed on the ground

that his sentence was unreasonable. The question before the Su-

preme Court was whether the defendant’s argument for a sentence

of less than 12 months preserved his claim that the 12-month sen-

tence was unreasonably long. See Holguin-Hernandez, 589 U.S. at

764.

The Fifth Circuit in Holguin-Hernandez held that the defend-

ant had forfeited his argument by failing to object in the district

court to the reasonableness of the sentence imposed. See United

States v. Holguin-Hernandez, 746 F. App’x 403 (5th Cir. 2018), vacated

and remanded, 589 U.S. 169 (2020). The Supreme Court reversed,

and clarified that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 51 provides

two ways to preserve an argument: (1) by informing the court of

the action the party wishes the court to take; or (2) by objecting to

the court’s action and informing the court of the grounds for that

objection. See Holguin-Hernandez, 589 U.S. at 171. Issues not

brought under one of these two bases are subject to review only

for plain error. See id.

Mr. Christolin told the district court of the action that he

wanted it to take—redacting SA Philippe’s translations. This re-

quest for redcation did not preserve a Confrontation Clause argu-

ment. A request for redactions on the ground that the translations

USCA11 Case: 23-13672 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 20 of 42

20 Opinion of the Court 23-13672

were repetitive and duplicative under Federal Rule of Evidence 403,

see D.E. 205 at 2, is not an assertion of a Confrontation Clause vio-

lation.

Mr. Christolin argues that the Confrontation Clause issue

was preserved because the district court raised it sua sponte. He says

that the discussion involving the Eleventh Circuit Criminal Hand-

book and the court’s reference to a potential Confrontation Clause

issue was about SA Philippe’s translations coming into evidence

without him taking the stand. We read the record differently.

The portion of the Handbook cited by the district court, con-

cerned an interpreter’s certified translation coming into evidence

without the translator testifying to its accuracy, and how that sce-

nario could result in a Confrontation Clause violation. See 1 Elev-

enth Circuit Criminal Handbook § 341 (citing United States v.

Charles, 722 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2013) (holding that an interpreter’s

statements of what a defendant said were testimonial and that the

defendant had a Sixth Amendment right to cross examine the in-

terpreter)).

Here, the accuracy of the certified transcript prepared by the

interpreter was stipulated to, so any Confrontation Clause issue

with respect to the certified translation was waived by that stipula-

tion. See United States v. Stephens, 609 F.2d 230, 232 (5th Cir. 1980)

(“[C]ounsel in a criminal case may waive his client’s Sixth Amend-

ment right of confrontation by stipulating to the admission of evi-

dence[.]”). Moreover, Mr. Christolin’s counsel made clear that his

concern was not the Confrontation Clause; he was concerned with

USCA11 Case: 23-13672 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 21 of 42

23-13672 Opinion of the Court 21

the dual translations from both the certified interpreter and SA

Philippe as being confusing, inconsistent, or duplicative. See D.E.

283 at 103. And, as noted, Mr. Christolin did not object to SA

Philippe’s translations in his motion in limine on Confrontation

Clause grounds. See D.E. 205 at 2. Accordingly, our review is for

plain error. 4

Under plain error, Mr. Christolin must show that there was

error, that the error was plain, and the error affected his substantial

rights. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); United States v. Davila, 569 U.S.

597, 607 (2013). If he makes that showing, we may correct the error

if it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of

judicial proceedings.” United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993)

(citations omitted) (alterations in original).

The transcript containing the dual translations of both SA

Philippe and the certified interpreter were shown to the jury. The

transcript was not admitted into evidence, but was testified to by a

different agent than SA Philippe and the certified translation of the

interview was stipulated to. SA Philippe’s translation was allowed

4 Mr. Christolin argues that our decisions in United States v. Touray, 151 F.4th

1317 (11th Cir. 2025), and United States v. Horn, 129 F.4th 1275 (11th Cir. 2025)

compel a different result because “the defense requested that the district court

prevent the jury from hearing Agent Phillipe’s interpretation of Mr. Chris-

tolin’s statement.” App. D.E. 64 at 2. But, as discussed earlier, Mr. Christolin

did not object on Confrontation Clause grounds and the district court did not

understand his objection as such. Rather, the objection was about the transla-

tions being confusing or inconsistent. See D.E. 205 at 1-2. Touray and Horn

therefore do not change our conclusion.

USCA11 Case: 23-13672 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 22 of 42

22 Opinion of the Court 23-13672

to remain in the transcript unredacted because the district court

gave the following limiting instruction to the jury:

Now, let me give you an additional instruction. So

you may notice that some of Special Agent Phillipe’s

contemporaneous remarks differ from the transla-

tions next to each Haitian Creole statement. Some of

Special Agent Phillipe’s remarks are his efforts to ex-

plain to his colleagues his own personal [sense] of

what Mr. Christolin is saying; therefore, Special

Agent Phillipe’s words are not necessarily an actual

verbatim translation and cannot be relied upon as

such.

D.E. 284 at 732–33.

This instruction, in our view, may have failed to properly

limit the scope of SA Philippe’s translations for purposes other than

the truth of the matter asserted. In other words, the instruction did

not tell the jury that SA Philippe’s own statements about what Mr.

Christolin said or meant could not be admitted for their truth due

to hearsay problems because SA Philippe did not testify.

A translation of a defendant’s statement is testimonial. So,

without testimony from the declarant, the translation is an out-of-

court statement and cannot be offered for the truth of the matter

asserted. See Charles, 722 F.3d at 1323–24. But Mr. Christolin never

raised any hearsay objection. Nor did he object to the limiting in-

struction. See D.E. 284 at 11.

USCA11 Case: 23-13672 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 23 of 42

23-13672 Opinion of the Court 23

Even if there was error of some kind, and even if the error

was plain, it did not substantially affect Mr. Christolin’s rights. “The

admission of hearsay alone does not mandate a reversal of convic-

tion: ‘[t]o require a new trial . . . [a] significant possibility must exist

that, considering the other evidence presented by both the prose-

cution and the defense, the . . . statement had a substantial impact

upon the verdict of the jury.’” United States v. Docampo, 573 F.3d

1091, 1097 (11th Cir. 2009) (alterations in original).

As noted above, SA Philippe’s translations and the certified

translation were not materially different such that they prejudiced

Mr. Christolin. And Mr. Christolin does not point to any of SA

Philippe’s translations that were so markedly dissimilar that they

unfairly prejudiced him. We therefore conclude that Mr. Chris-

tolin’s rights were not substantially affected by SA Philippe’s trans-

lations being presented to the jury.

IV

The district court did not err in denying Mr. Christolin’s mo-

tion to suppress, and the admission of SA Philippe’s translations did

not constitute plain error under the Confrontation Clause. We

therefore affirm Mr. Christolin’s convictions.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 23-13672 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 24 of 42

24 Opinion of the Court 23-13672

APPENDIX

Participant Transcript Certified Trans- SA Philippe

lation Translation

SA Devane Who uses this

phone?

Christolin Me.

SA Ramirez Anybody else?

Other people?

SA Devane Anyone but

you? Can

you—ask him

that in Creole?

SA Philippe Ki lòt moun ki Who else uses

use telefòn sa? this phone?

Christolin Sèl mwen Just me

menm.

SA Philippe The Samsung

phone?

SA Devane This is the

Samsung

the…

Christolin Sèl mwen Just me. He says just him

menm.

SA Devane Would anyone

else ever call

this phone and

ask for some-

one other than

you?

SA Philippe Eske moun Do people call

konn rele tele- this phone to ask

fòn sa pou for, uh, other

mande pou people?

uh, lòt moun?

Christolin Pou lòt moun? For other people?

USCA11 Case: 23-13672 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 25 of 42

23-13672 Opinion of the Court 25

SA Philippe Yeah

Christolin Non. Men te- No. But, the He said it’s his

lefòn mwen, phone is mine. phone. He’s the

se sèl pou I’m the only one only person they

mwen yo ka they can call and can call and ask

rele mande ask for. for.

pou mwen.

Cherubin Translation: Pg. 24-25.

USCA11 Case: 23-13672 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 26 of 42

26 Opinion of the Court 23-13672

Participant Transcript Certified Trans- SA Philippe

lation Translation

SA Devane So, people call

you Patizan?

Christolin Ya.

SA Ramirez Who calls you

that?

SA Philippe Ki moun ki Who calls you,

rele w, um, ki um, who calls

moun ki rele you Patizan?

w Patizan?

Christolin Bon, [U/I] Well, [U/I] there He said a lot of

gen, gen are, there are sev- people call him

plizyè moun. eral people Patizan. What

does that mean

Patizan?

Christolin No, se kòmsi No, it’s like I He said the name

m bezwen rele want to call Patizan is just a

w— se just you— it’s just a nickname they

yon non yo name they gave call him

ban mwen. M me. I don’t want

pa vle rele to call Amos or I

Amos ou byen don’t want to call

m pa vle rele you, just Patizan.

w, just Pati-

zan.

Cherubin Translation: Pg. 31-32.

USCA11 Case: 23-13672 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 27 of 42

23-13672 Opinion of the Court 27

Participant Transcript Certified Trans- SA Philippe

lation Translation

Christolin Ya. Ou ka just Ya. You could just He said—he said

rele m ou just call me, you just he could go pick

di m al pran ask me to get up the per—pick

yon bagay nan something from up something

men yon moun someone for you, from somebody,

pou w, m just I just go and get if they tell him

al pran l. Moun it. The person it’s something, he

lan ka di m se might tell it’s just won’t know.

just tèl bagay, si something, if they

moun lan pa don’t want me

vle m konnen. know. It’s just me

Se jus mwen by instinct, I

menm pa en- could…

sten, m gen

dwa…

Christolin But, si m pa But, if I don’t He said after—he

konnen ou nan know you’re in told his brother

anyen wrong, anything wrong; he went from

si m konnen if I know some- Haiti—he went to

something thing wrong Haiti, when he

wrong about about you, I will came back they

you, m ap exercise… That’s took his phone—

ekzèse... Se why my brother [Voices overlap] .

poutèt sa frè m who just would . . Uh, he went to

la, li te just tell, he just told Haiti, they took

konn di, li te me go get the his phone, he told

just di m sa, al stuff, I said OK, his brother, he’s

pran bagay la, next time, be- not gonna, uh,

m di OK, next cause I do not meet with any-

time, paske m want, I got back body else

pa vle, m sot from Haiti, they

Ayiti, yo just took my phone. I

pran telefòn do not want to

mwen, m pa speak, I don’t

USCA11 Case: 23-13672 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 28 of 42

28 Opinion of the Court 23-13672

vle pale, m pa need, don’t want

bezwen, al to meet anyone

rankontre ak that I don’t know.

okenn moun

mwen pa kon-

nen.

Christolin M pa vle pale I don’t want to He’s not gonna

ak okenn talk to anyone talk to anybody

moun m pa that I don’t know. he doesn’t know

konnen. on the phone.

[voice overlap].

Christolin M pa vle pale I do not want to

ak okenn ke speak to no one

moun mwen that I don’t know!

pa konnen! M I just told him

te jis di l sa. that

SA Philippe So, ou di frè w So, you told your

sa-- brother that--

SA Devane Let’s dig into

that then.

SA Philippe --then, ou kon- --then, you knew

nen sa frè w t what your

ap fè w fè? brother was mak-

ing you do?

SA Devane Mh!

Christolin Noon, tande! Nooo, listen! I

M just pa kon- just don’t know.

nen. Paske m Because I just

just konnen… know… When I

Lè m vini m ap came I was telling

di ti sè m sa. M my sister. I said

di “Mirlène, ou “Mirlène, you

konnen m sot know when I

Ayiti, yo pran came from Haiti,

telefòn mwen, they took my

just I don’t phone, just I don’t

USCA11 Case: 23-13672 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 29 of 42

23-13672 Opinion of the Court 29

know. M pa know. I don’t

konnen si se lè know if it was

m t ap pale ak when I was speak-

David, kèk ing with David,

bagay. M pa some stuff. I don’t

konnen! Just sa know! Just what I

m pwal di Da- will let David

vid, next time, know, next time,

pa pale avè m do not tell me

de okenn ke about anyone that

moun m pa I don’t know.

konnen

Christolin Because m pa Because I don’t He was explain-

vle pale ak want to speak ing to his sis-

okenn moun with anyone that I ter…He said if he

ke m pa kon- don’t know. sent him to go to

nen. Se sak fè That’s why I told somebody, uh, he

m di misye the guy since I knows the person

depi m vin isi, came here, I’ve he’s gonna go but

m ap travay. M been working. if he doesn’t

pa pè leve bonè I’m not afraid to know the person,

m al travay. M get up early to go he’s not gonna do

pa bezwen work. I don’t it anymore.

konn anyen. want to know an-

But, si m al ything. But, if I

pran, si ou go get, if you

voye m yon send me some-

kote, m konn where, I know the

moun lan, wi. person, yes. But,

Men, si m pa if I don’t know

konnen moun the person, I’m

lan, m pa pale not talking to

ak moun m pa people I don’t

konnen ankò. know anymore.

Cherubin Translation: Pg. 91-94.

USCA11 Case: 23-13672 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 30 of 42

30 Opinion of the Court 23-13672

Participant Transcript Certified Trans- SA Philippe

lation Translation

Christolin M konn al pran I’m used to pick

bagay nan men up things from

moun, m pa ka people. I cannot

di w m pa al say I don’t. But,

pran. Men, si m if I tell you I’m

di w m konn used just…

just…[U/I]. [U/I].

SA Philippe Konbyen fwa, How many

konbyen fwa w times, how many

al chache yon times you went

bag nan men to pick up a bag

moun? Konbyen from someone?

fwa w al How many

chache… times you pick

up…

Christolin But, ou wè lè But, you see

Matt [U/I] Edi- when Matt [U/I]

son, m sonje m Edison, I remem-

t al pran yon ber I picked up a

bagay nan men bag from some-

yon moun nan one in Edison.

Edison

SA Philippe He said—he He said—he

said… Tann said… Wait just

mwen yon one second!

moman!

Christolin Nan yon bag, yo In a bag, I was He said he re-

te dim se te yon told it’s a gift. membered when

kado. you brought up

Edison he picked

up something

from somebody

at Edison, um, it

USCA11 Case: 23-13672 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 31 of 42

23-13672 Opinion of the Court 31

was in a bag in-

side a [U/I]?

Christolin Te di m sa se I was told to take He—he said the

yon kado pou m the gift to his person told

bay yon mennaj girlfriend him—[Voices

li. overlap]

Christolin [U/I] But, m te [U/I] But, I saw

wè papye kado gift wrap inside

ladan, nan yon the bag [U/I].

bag [U/I].

Cherubin Translation: Pg. 105.

USCA11 Case: 23-13672 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 32 of 42

32 Opinion of the Court 23-13672

Participant Transcript Certified Trans- SA Philippe

lation Translation

SA Philippe Moun lan pat The person did

louvri, moun not open, the per-

lan pat montre son did not show

w sa ki nan you what was in-

bag la? side the bag?

Christolin Non No

SA Philippe So, nou pa So, we don’t

gen… So, si m have… So, if I

montre w …? show you…?

Christolin Si moun lan If the person just

jès ban mwen gave me the

l… Si ou mon- bag… If you

tre m foto show me the per-

moun lan, m son’s picture, I

pap sonje l. won’t remember

SA Philippe No, no. Moun No, no. The per-

lan just ba w son just gave you

bag la and, ou the bag and you

jis pran bag la, just took the bag,

w ale? and left?

Christolin M jis al pote l I just took it to

bay moun lan? the person? Be-

Paske… cause…

SA Philippe Ki, ki moun Who, who did

ou pote l bay? you take it?

Christolin M te pote l bay I took it to a lady!

yon dam!

Christolin Dam lan The lady met me, He said—--he

jwenn avè m li she met me… brought the bag

jwenn avèm [yawning]. to a lady…

nan… [baye]

Christolin OK. [U/I] ap OK. [U/I] head-

desann. M ing down. I

jwenn ak caught up with

USCA11 Case: 23-13672 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 33 of 42

23-13672 Opinion of the Court 33

moun lan la, the person, the

dam la nan lady [Finger snap-

[klake dwèt]-- ping]--

SA Ramirez What did he

see? Did he

look at it?

Christolin --nan West --in West Dixie, He said he met up

Dixie an ki san on eleventh. [U/I] with a lady at the

onz lan. [U/I] I just gave [U/I] West Dixie on

m just bay [Voice overlap] 111th Street, on

[U/I] [Vwa 11th Avenue. On

monte youn Eleventh Street,

sou lòt] Seventh Avenue,

he met up with a

lady at a Win

Dixie and gave

her the bag

Cherubin Translation: Pg. 110-111.

USCA11 Case: 23-13672 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 34 of 42

34 Opinion of the Court 23-13672

Participant Transcript Certified Trans- SA Philippe

lation Translation

Christolin M just pa— I just did not—be- He said it was

paske li gen cause it had a [U/I] paper

yon pakèt bunch of [Stut-

[Bege] flyer, ters] flyers, bal-

blad ladan, ak loons inside with

tout papye gift wraps inside.

kado ladan

Christolin M pa ouvri l. I did not open it. I

M pa pèsiste did not insist on

konnen sa ki finding out what

ladan was inside.

SA Philippe Kouman ou How did you see

wè l te gen there were gift

papye kado wraps inside if

ladan si ou pa you didn’t open

louvri l? it?

Christolin Paske li pat Because it wasn’t He said the bag

zipe! zipped! wasn’t zipped and

he saw…

Christolin Li pat zipe. It wasn’t zipped. He saw wrapping

[U/I] Ou wè… [U/I] You see… paper in the bag,

Ou jis… Ou, You just… Have the bag wasn’t

ou konn wè you seen the re- zipped, he saw

gwo bag ally huge bag wrapping paper

[Bege] yo konn [Stutters] used to in the bag.

pot kado yo? put gifts in?

SA Philippe M konn sa w I see what you’re

ap di a. talking about

Christolin That’s it!

SA Philippe So, ou wè So, you saw wrap-

papye kado? ping paper?

Christolin Yeah

USCA11 Case: 23-13672 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 35 of 42

23-13672 Opinion of the Court 35

SA Devane Wrapping pa-

per in… like

tissue paper?

SA Philippe Ki kalite? What type?

SA Ramirez Or like a tube?

Christolin Te gen tout They were in all

koulè. Te gen colors. They had

wòz, vè, but pink, green, but

it’s a bag, for, it’s a bag, for the

the big bag for big bag, for the

the, for the gift. You know—

gift. Ou

konn—

SA Philippe A duffle bag—

Christolin --ou konn bag --you know the

kado yo? gift bags?

SA Philippe A duffle bag.

Christolin Yeah

SA Philippe A duffle bag

Christolin But, ou kon- But, you know af- Oh, [U/I] he says

nen lè ou fin ter you’re done [Stutters] when

mete l anndan, putting it in, I just you go to like a

ou [U/I] m jis see[U/I] a bunch party and then

wè yon pakèt of paper. you kinda put…

papye

Cherubin Translation: Pg. 112-113.

USCA11 Case: 23-13672 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 36 of 42

36 Opinion of the Court 23-13672

Participant Transcript Certified Trans- SA Philippe

lation Translation

SA Devane So… [Sighs]

we’re so close

here, we’re so

close to the

truth with you,

that you’ve

told—what I

know is that

the person you

say you met

had cocaine,

um… I know

he met you,

because you

just told me

you met some-

one by Edison

school, he gave

you a duffel

bag—that’s the

same story that

my guy told.

You’re telling

me the bag

was unzipped

where you

could see in-

side. But you

said the only

thing I saw was

tissue paper.

Christolin Se pa sa, se pa That’s not it,

sa sèlman m di that’s not all I

non. [U/I]

USCA11 Case: 23-13672 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 37 of 42

23-13672 Opinion of the Court 37

said, alright.

[U/I].

SA Devane Correct me!

Christolin The top, the The top, the top He said, that’s

top bag la bag la [U/I]. But, what he saw at

[U/I]. Men, m I did not insist on the top but he

pat pèsiste al looking inside. didn’t go and look

gade andedan at the bottom.

l.

Cherubin Translation: Pg. 116.

USCA11 Case: 23-13672 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 38 of 42

38 Opinion of the Court 23-13672

Participant Transcript Certified Trans- SA Philippe

lation Translation

SA Philippe Banm, banm Let me, let me

mande w yon ask you a ques-

kesyon. Kon- tion. How many

byen fwa, times, the per-

moun lan, uh son, uh, you met

you met up up with, you

with, ou [U/I] [U/I] at Edison,

at, at Edison, how many times

konbyen fwa did you meet this

ou meet up ak person?

moun sa?

Christolin Depi sèl lè a. Since that time.

SA Philippe That’s the

only time?

Christolin Yeah

SA Ramirez Who did he

meet with at,

at Edison?

SA Philippe He said the per-

son he met with

at Edison----that

gave him the bag,

that’s the only

time he met with

him.

Cherubin Translation: Pg. 120.

USCA11 Case: 23-13672 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 39 of 42

23-13672 Opinion of the Court 39

Participant Transcript Certified Trans- SA Philippe

lation Translation

SA Philippe So, nan travay So, you were at

ou te ye? work?

Christolin Yeah, nan taksi Yeah, I was driv-

m t ap fè. ing the taxi.

SA Philippe So, he was at So, he was at

work? So, w al work? So, you

cheche l nan went to pick him

taksi? up in the taxi?

Christolin Non, li just di No, he just told

m men kote l me where he

ye, m jwenn li. was, I went to

M pran bagay meet him. I

la pou li picked up the

thing for him.

SA Philippe Men, eske, But, were, were

eske ou te nan you in a cab or…?

taksi or…?

Christolin Nan taksi m te I was in the cab He said he was at

ye work, he met up

with the guy. He

was in his taxi.

Cherubin Translation: Pg. 126.

USCA11 Case: 23-13672 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 40 of 42

40 Opinion of the Court 23-13672

Participant Transcript Certified Trans- SA Philippe

lation Translation

Christolin Moun lan, The person [U/I],

[U/I], just li di just told me

men kote l where he was

pake parked

SA Philippe OK. The per- OK. The person

son told him told him where

where to park to park and you

and ou just ale just went to him?

bò kote l?

Christolin Ya. Non, m Yeah. No, I just He told the per-

just ap [U/I], [U/I], after that, son he was in taxi,

apre sa, li just he told me that the person told

di m men li. was him. Now, he him where to

Koulyea, li di told me that’s park. And, that’s

men li. Epi, him. Then, I told how they [U/I]

mwen menm him too, that’s each other.

tou, m di l m me in the taxi.

nan yon taksi.

SA Ramirez When was

this?

SA Philippe Kilè? When?

Christolin M pa sonje dat I don’t remember He don’t remem-

la. the date. ber the date.

SA Ramirez A year ago, six

months, three

months?

Christolin Mhh, m pa ka, Mhh, I can’t, I be- He said almost

m kwè sa gen lieve that must be two years.

nenpòt de zan. about a good two

years.

Christolin M pa sonje ex- I don’t remember He doesn’t re-

actly exactly. member exactly.

SA Ramirez Did he give

any money?

USCA11 Case: 23-13672 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 41 of 42

23-13672 Opinion of the Court 41

The guy…?

[U/I]

SA Philippe Eske mesye a Did the guy give

ba w lajan? you money?

Christolin Non No

SA Philippe Eske ou ba l la- Did you give him

jan? money?

Christolin Non No He didn’t give the

guy money, the

guy didn’t give

him money.

Cherubin Translation: Pg. 129-130.

USCA11 Case: 23-13672 Document: 70-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 42 of 42

42 Opinion of the Court 23-13672

Participant Transcript Certified Trans- SA Philippe

lation Translation

Christolin How do you How do you

say…? M pa say…? I don’t

konnen. Moun know. The per-

lan gen dwa son may know

konn sa l pa fè what he’s doing,

a, but mwen but me I may not

menm m gen know if, if…

dwa pa kon-

nen si, si…

SA Philippe Ki moun ki Who, who knows

konn, konnen what they’re do-

sa y ap fè a? M ing? I don’t un-

pa konprann derstand what

sa w di. you’re saying

Christolin Non, pa No, for example,

ekzanp, OK. OK. If…

Si…

SA Philippe Moun ki rele The person who

w pou fè a…? called you to…?

Christolin Yeah

SA Philippe Mike…?

Christolin M pa konnen. I don’t know. He said Mike may

Yeah. Yeah. know what he’s

doing, but he

don’t know what

Mike is doing

Cherubin Translation: Pg. 131.