## Facts

- Law enforcement investigating a rural Fresno County, California property discovered a large marijuana cultivation site, including plants growing in multiple vineyard rows.
- Officers ultimately determined there were 1,109 marijuana plants on the property.
- A vehicle leaving the property was stopped, and officers found plant-growing paraphernalia; officers then encountered Orm Hieng outside the residence and found items inside linking him to the premises.
- After arrest, Hieng was interviewed through an interpreter; at trial, an agent testified to Hieng’s statements as translated by the interpreter.
- The government also presented testimony establishing the total plant count using a tally process: each officer counted the plants he cut, reported the number to a detective who recorded each tally and later summed them.
- Hieng testified, denying knowledge of the marijuana operation and claiming he was paid to sign the lease and stay at the house.
- A jury convicted Hieng of (1) conspiracy to manufacture and distribute more than 1,000 marijuana plants and (2) manufacturing/cultivating (and aiding and abetting) more than 1,000 marijuana plants.
- The district court imposed the 10-year mandatory minimum under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(vii) and denied safety-valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) based on a finding that Hieng did not truthfully provide all information about the offense.

## Issues

1. Whether it was reversible error to admit an agent’s testimony about Hieng’s post-arrest statements when the statements were made in Khmer and translated by an interpreter who did not testify.
2. Whether admission of testimony about the total marijuana plant count, derived from multiple officers’ tallies reported to another detective, violated the hearsay rules and required reversal.
3. Whether the district court clearly erred in finding Hieng ineligible for safety-valve relief because he failed to truthfully provide all information and evidence he had concerning the offense.
4. Whether any errors cumulatively deprived Hieng of a fair trial.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed Hieng’s convictions and sentence.
- The court held there was no plain error in admitting the agent’s testimony about the translated interview statements because, under the language-conduit doctrine, the interpreter’s translation could be treated as Hieng’s own statement on the record presented.
- The court concluded any error regarding the plant-count testimony was not reversible, including because it was harmless in light of the overall evidentiary record supporting a finding exceeding 1,000 plants.
- The court held the district court did not clearly err in denying safety-valve relief, crediting the finding that Hieng had not truthfully provided all information in his possession regarding the offense.
- The court rejected the cumulative-error claim.

## Legal Principles

- When no trial objection is made to an evidentiary ruling, appellate review is for plain error; reversal requires a clear or obvious error affecting substantial rights.
- An interpreter’s translation may be treated as the defendant’s own statement (rather than the interpreter’s) when the interpreter functions as a neutral “language conduit,” assessed through factors such as selection, qualifications/neutrality, adoption of the translation, and evidence of mistranslation; in that circumstance, admitting the translated statement through another witness does not violate the Confrontation Clause.
- Admission of aggregated numerical evidence compiled from multiple participants’ reports may implicate hearsay concerns, but reversal is not warranted where an applicable exception applies or any error is harmless given the strength of proof on the contested element.
- Safety-valve eligibility under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) requires the defendant to truthfully provide all information and evidence the defendant has concerning the offense by sentencing; district-court factual findings on truthful disclosure are reviewed for clear error and are upheld if supported by the record.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld both the jury verdicts and the 10-year mandatory minimum sentence, ruling that the translated post-arrest statements were properly attributed to Hieng under the language-conduit doctrine, any dispute about the plant-count proof did not justify reversal, and the district court’s denial of safety-valve relief was supported by its credibility-based finding that Hieng did not fully and truthfully disclose his knowledge of the offense.


United States v. Hieng, 679 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 2012)