matter, Movant has failed to demonstrate that he was unable to fully comprehend that he was waiving his right to a jury trial at the said jury trial waiver proceeding. As noted, Movant admitted at the evidentiary hearing that he spoke “basic English,” and several times on cross-examination he answered questions without waiting for the interpreter. Notably, Movant has lived in the United States since 1972. While Movant testified that he had a difficult time understanding English legal terms, we agree with another juris diction’s reasoning that a “lack of understanding as to legal terminology and the way in which a case proceeds is certainly not unique to non-English speakers and is not the reasoning behind providing interpreters.” State v. Jadama, 232 P.3d 545, 552 (Utah App.2010) (<HOLDING>). Further, Attorney McGee testified he
holding that a demonstrably limited ability in english is necessary for an interpreter to be required holding that court not required to find ability to pay before imposing criminal fine holding that an express pass through statement is not necessary before an indian tribe may be required to collect cigarette taxes holding that an antitrust injury is a necessary element of a  2 claim holding that a husband cannot be required to pay a support award that exceeds his financial ability