courtroom if that judge determines that a party “speaks only or primarily a language other than the English language ... so as to inhibit such party’s comprehension of the proceedings or communication with counsel or the presiding judicial officer.” 28 U.S.C. § 1827(d)(1). Additionally, some circuits recognize a right to an interpreter when a defendant’s inability to communicate in English interferes with the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation or the defendant’s Fifth Amendment due process right or his right to testify on his own behalf. See United States v. Lim, 794 F.2d 469, 470 (9th Cir.1986) (citing cases). Our circuit holds that a constitutional right to an interpreter exists in certain situations. See United States v. Mayans, 17 F.3d 1174, 1179-81 (9th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Shin, 953 F.2d 559,
holding that a defendants fifth amendment rights were violated when an interpreter was withdrawn by the court holding fifth amendment not violated under above rationale holding that the statement ill take the fifth was an assertion of the fifth amendment privilege holding that a suspects fifth amendment rights were not violated when he agreed to speak with officers but refused to give a  written statement without an attorney holding defendants fifth amendment rights had been violated when his probation was revoked based on his failure to complete a sexual treatment program that required incriminating admissions