# United States v. Amos Christolin

> Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · April 20, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11312898

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- **Decided:** April 20, 2026
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Nature of suit:** NEW
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11312898

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11312898. Public record. Not legal advice.