The court affirmed convictions for manufacturing and uttering counterfeit obligations. The defendant, a citizen of Japan moved to suppress his statements to investigating officers and his consent to search on the grounds that: 1) under the 1963 Japan Convention, he should have been advised of his right to contact a consular official; 2) his waiver of rights and consent to search were involuntary since a translator was not present and he was not advised of his right to contact a consular official. The court found controlling its previous en banc decision in United States v. Lombera-Carmorlinga (9th Cir. 2000) 2206 F.3d 882, 883, where the court found that in cases of non-compliance, the terms of the Vienna Convention do not accord a suppression remedy. The court noted that the Lombera case presented a closer question because the Vienna Convention has a provision requiring notification of the consul, and the Japan Convention only provides for the consul and the individual to have access to each other.