The court rejected the defendant’s claim that inadequacies with his trial interpreters violated his constitutional rights. The court held that because the defendant did not challenge the adequacy of the interpreters at trial, the issue was waived on appeal and that plain error review did not apply. The court further held that because the defendant selected the interpreters, he could not complain about their adequacy. Finally, the court concluded that the record did not reveal inadequacies, given the interpreters’ limited role and the lack of translation difficulties.