that the defendant [or a witness]: (1) speaks only or primarily a language other than the English language; and (2) this fact inhibits their comprehension of the proceedings or communication with counsel.” United States v. Black, 369 F.3d 1171, 1174 (10th Cir.2004) (citing United States v. Johnson, 248 F.3d 655, 661 (7th Cir.2001)), cert. denied. Once a court is put on notice that there may exist a “significant language difficulty,” it must make a determination as to whether an interpreter is needed. Luna v. Black, 772 F.2d 448, 451 (8th Cir.1985). Federal district courts are given wide discretion in appointing an interpreter. Id. Courts are to base their decision whether to appoint an interpreter on factors such as the d tute; Diaz v. State, 491 S.W.2d 166, 167-68 (Tex.Crim.App.1973) (<HOLDING>). Also, states similarly base the appointment
holding that it was not error for a trial court to have failed to provide sua sponte a competent interpreter where counsel did not request one prior to trial and defendant spoke and understood english well enough to conversantly discuss the crime with a police officer and had no trouble answering questions at the sentencing hearing holding that it was not plain error for the court not to give a self defense jury instruction where the defendant did not request one holding that once counsel was appointed defendant spoke to the court through counsel and thus the court was not required to respond to defendants request for a speedy trial holding that the trial court was under no obligation to appoint an interpreter where defendant did not request one and spoke english reasonably well holding that trial court need not appoint an interpreter where counsel indicated that he could communicate with defendant and that defendant could understand questions and answers