to questions. Furthermore, Michel manifested overtly accusatory behavior, perhaps best evidenced by Michel’s allegation that the prosecutor was a “mole” who was lying and hiding evidence from the court and the jury. (Docket No. 897 at 48-49.) Numerous other instances illustrated Michel’s penchant for placing the blame on others. Succinctly stated, the record from the evidentiary hearing leads the court to only one finding specifically, that Michel’s testimony is not credible. b. Presumption of propriety in favor of court interpreter However, a more important factor supporting this court’s finding of incredibility emanates from a presumption that a court interpreter translates communications with propriety, accuracy, and integrity. Once again, Michel contends that the Haitian C ir.2006) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Larnbey, 974 F.2d 1389, 1394
recognizing a pre sumption of effective delivery with respect to regular mail holding that due process requires no irreducible combination of pre and posttermination hearings recognizing a similar exception to its rule with respect to corporations holding the same with respect to an apartment holding that when attorneys were acting as members of the firm with respect to the case in question section 504b1 applies to allow  fee sharing with any member whether that membership is regular or sporadic