⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit hears argument in United States versus Ramirez-Ramirez. The defendant, Antonio Ramirez-Ramirez, was convicted of conspiracy to distribute drugs and illegal possession of a firearm. He raises three challenges on appeal. First, he argues that admitting English transcripts of Spanish-language recordings violated his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights, because the government translator never testified and could not be cross-examined. Second, he challenges his sentence. A jury acquitted him of forcibly resisting arrest and of brandishing a firearm. At sentencing, the judge nonetheless found that he had threatened the arresting officers with the gun, and raised the sentence on that basis. Third, he challenges a second enhancement: the district court found that he possessed the firearm in connection with drug trafficking, which added two levels. He says the connection was never shown. The government responds on all three fronts. It argues no confrontation violation occurred as to the phone calls, because the confidential informant who participated in them verified the transcripts and was cross-examined at trial. It concedes a separately translated text message should not have been admitted, but argues that error was harmless. And it defends both enhancements on the record. The case turns on a narrower question than it first appears: when the government's translator never testifies, may someone else vouch for the translation? The government says yes. The defense says the Sixth Amendment forbids it. The appeal also asks whether recent changes to the sentencing guidelines restrict the use of acquitted conduct.

United States v. Ramirez-Ramirez (No. 25-20155) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued August 6, 2026.