Cesar Benitez-Arzate pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. On appeal he alleges that his guilty plea is invalid because his interpreter was not certified under the Court Interpreters Act, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1827-28 (West 1994 & Supp. 2006). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

Benitez-Arzate did not object to the non-certification of his Spanish interpreter. Indeed, Benitez-Arzate chose to use the services of the very interpreter of whom he now complains in lieu of the court-certified interpreter originally provided to him by the court and used at his arraignment. We find no plain error in the district court’s decision to allow Benitez-Ar-zate to use the services of the interpreter obtained by his defense counsel. United States v. Paz, 981 F.2d 199, 201 (5th Cir. 1992) (providing review standard for claim of an uncertified interpreter under the Court Interpreters Act); United States v. Gonzales, 339 F.3d 725, 728-29 (8th Cir. 2003) (same).

Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.