Back Before the Fifth Circuit: DOJ Appeals Another FCPA Acquittal

On May 8, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a notice of appeal challenging U.S. District Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt’s post-verdict judgment of acquittal in the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) prosecution of Ramón Alexandro Rovirosa Martínez.[1] A Houston jury had convicted Rovirosa in December 2025 of conspiracy to violate the FCPA and two substantive counts, but Judge Hoyt later vacated the convictions, concluding that the Government’s reliance on English translations of Spanish language communications violated the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause.[2]

The appeal could raise important questions about post-verdict appealability and shape how foreign language digital evidence is authenticated and presented in federal criminal trials. It also comes against a familiar backdrop: Judge Hoyt has twice dismissed FCPA-related cases, only to be reversed, remanded or substantially limited by the Fifth Circuit.[3]

Background

DOJ charged Rovirosa in August 2025 with one count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA and three substantive FCPA counts.[4] According to the Government, Rovirosa and his co-defendant offered at least $150,000 in bribes, including cash payments and luxury goods, to officials at the Mexican state-owned petroleum company, Petróleos Mexicanos (Pemex), and one of its subsidiaries in exchange for contracts and other business advantages allegedly worth at least $2.5 million. In December 2025, a jury convicted Rovirosa on the conspiracy count and two substantive FCPA counts, while acquitting him on a third substantive count.

On April 14, 2026, Judge Hoyt granted Rovirosa’s post-trial motion under Rule 29(c), entering a judgment of acquittal on all counts.[5] Central to the ruling was a Confrontation Clause challenge that the defense had preserved throughout the case—first through pre-trial objections to the Government’s translation exhibits and later in the Rule 29(c) motion itself.

At trial, the Government relied heavily on certified English translations of Spanish language WhatsApp messages, and other communications involving Rovirosa, his co-defendant Avila, and alleged co-conspirators. Judge Hoyt concluded that the translations were testimonial in nature and therefore subject to the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause. Because the Government did not call the translators to testify, the defense was denied the opportunity to cross examine the individuals who prepared the translations.

The court rejected the Government’s argument that translator certifications—or testimony from a case agent who had reviewed the translations—could substitute for live testimony from the translators themselves. Judge Hoyt emphasized that translation is not a purely mechanical exercise, but one that requires contextual judgment regarding tone, idiom, cultural usage, and regional nuance. In the court’s view, those judgments made the translators’ work testimonial and therefore subject to confrontation.

Because the translated communications formed the backbone of the Government’s case, the court concluded that the remaining evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions once the translations were excluded. Judge Hoyt also noted that, during deliberations, the jury requested access to the original Spanish language messages, which had never been introduced into evidence.

DOJ filed a notice of appeal on May 8. Rovirosa’s defense team has argued that the acquittal is final and unreviewable under the Double Jeopardy Clause, which bars further prosecution following a judgment of acquittal. Although the notice does not state the Government’s appellate theory, the appealability question is likely to turn on the rule that a government appeal from a post-verdict judgment of acquittal may proceed where reversal would reinstate the jury’s guilty verdict rather than require a second trial.

Issues on Appeal

The Fifth Circuit will likely confront at least two issues: The first is whether Judge Hoyt’s acquittal order is appealable at all. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3731 and the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332 (1975), the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar a government appeal from a post-verdict judgment of acquittal where reversal would simply reinstate the jury’s guilty verdict rather than require a second trial.

The second, and potentially more consequential, issue concerns the scope of the Confrontation Clause as applied to translated evidence. Judge Hoyt concluded that the Government’s use of certified English translations—without testimony from the translators themselves—violated the Sixth Amendment. He further viewed the absence of the underlying Spanish language communications from the evidentiary record as a significant defect.

The appeal therefore presents a potentially important question of first impression: whether certified translations constitute testimonial statements for Confrontation Clause purposes and, if so, what safeguards are constitutionally required before those translations may be presented to a jury. More specifically, the Fifth Circuit may have to decide whether translator certifications alone are sufficient, whether testimony from a sponsoring law enforcement witness can substitute for translator testimony, and whether the original foreign language communications themselves must be admitted into evidence.

A Familiar Fifth Circuit Backdrop

This is not Judge Hoyt’s first FCPA-related engagement with the Fifth Circuit. In the consolidated cases United States v. Rafoi Bleuler and United States v. Murta,[6] the Fifth Circuit twice reversed Judge Hoyt’s rulings.

Those cases involved an alleged international bribery and money laundering scheme involving Venezuela’s state-owned oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA). The defendants, foreign wealth management professionals, allegedly helped move and conceal bribe proceeds. Judge Hoyt dismissed the FCPA and money laundering charges, reasoning in part that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the statutes did not reach the conduct extraterritorially, that the indictment inadequately alleged agency, and that the FCPA’s use of the term “agent” was unconstitutionally vague.[7] He also suppressed statements Murta made during an interview in Lisbon, Portugal.

The Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded.[8] It held that subject matter jurisdiction is satisfied when an indictment charges a federal offense, and that extraterritoriality is a merits question, not a jurisdictional bar. It also held that the indictment adequately alleged agency, that the FCPA’s “agent” language was not unconstitutionally vague as applied, and that the money laundering allegations were sufficient at the indictment stage. The court also reversed the suppression order.

After remand, Judge Hoyt again granted Murta relief, dismissing the indictment with prejudice on Speedy Trial Act, Sixth Amendment, and Rule 48(b) grounds due to delay.[9] The Fifth Circuit again substantially pushed back; it affirmed a Speedy Trial Act violation, but reversed dismissal with prejudice, reversed the Sixth Amendment and Rule 48(b) bases for dismissal, vacated the suppression ruling, and remanded.[10]

That history does not dictate the result in Rovirosa, but it does provide important context for DOJ’s appeal and FCPA litigation strategy in the Fifth Circuit, as government appeals are somewhat rare.

Continued Fifth Circuit Scrutiny of FCPA Rulings

The case highlights an evolving dialogue between Judge Hoyt and the Fifth Circuit in FCPA matters. The Fifth Circuit’s decisions in Rafoi Bleuler and Murta demonstrated that expansive threshold challenges to FCPA jurisdiction and statutory reach may face substantial resistance on appeal, and that the court has not hesitated to reverse, remand or even reassign cases when it views a district court as departing from applicable law.

Against that backdrop, it is notable that Judge Hoyt’s ruling in Rovirosa did not rest on the more familiar FCPA battlegrounds of agency, domestic nexus, or extraterritorial jurisdiction. Instead, the acquittal turned on evidentiary and constitutional issues surrounding the Government’s use of translated communications. That shift in focus may make the case especially significant for cross border prosecutions more broadly, including matters well beyond the FCPA context.

For practitioners, the more immediate takeaway from Rovirosa is the importance of carefully building—and contesting—the evidentiary record in foreign language cases. Whether or not the Fifth Circuit ultimately endorses Judge Hoyt’s conclusion that certified translations are testimonial, defense counsel are likely to use the decision to press for stricter evidentiary foundations. That includes insisting that both the original language communications and their English translations be admitted into evidence, that translators or other qualified witnesses with personal knowledge of the translation process be made available for cross examination, and that any case agent characterization of translated content be scrutinized under both the Confrontation Clause and the rules governing expert and lay opinion testimony.

If the Fifth Circuit reaches the merits, Rovirosa could become an important decision not only for FCPA prosecutions, but for any federal criminal case built around translated digital communications.

Law clerk Katie Lutz also contributed to this article.

[1] Notice of Appeal, United States. v. Rovirosa, No. 4:25-cr-00415 (S.D. Tex. May 8, 2026), ECF No. 152.

[2] Memorandum and Order Dismissing Indictment and Granting an Acquittal United States v. Rovirosa, No. 4:25-cr-00415, at 8–9 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 14, 2026), ECF No. 147.

[3] United States v. Rafoi, 60 F.4th 982 (5th Cir. 2023); United States v. Murta, No. 23-20276, 2024 WL 64764 (5th Cir. Jan. 5, 2024).

[4] Indictment, United States v. Rovirosa, No. 4:25-cr-00415, at 1–4, 14, 19–20 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2025), ECF No. 1.

[5] Memorandum and Order Dismissing Indictment and Granting an Acquittal, United States v. Rovirosa, No. 4:25-cr-00415, at 3, 6–9 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 14, 2026), ECF No. 147.

[6] Rafoi, 60 F.4th at 987–88; DOJ Press Release, Two Mexican Nationals Charged for Bribing State-Owned Energy Officials (Aug. 11, 2025).

[7] Rafoi, 60 F.4th at 987–88.

[8] Id. at 1007.

[9] United States v. Murta, No. 23-20276, 2024 WL 64764, at *1–2 (5th Cir. Jan. 5, 2024) .

[10] Id. at *9.

This post is as of the posting date stated above. Sidley Austin LLP assumes no duty to update this post or post about any subsequent developments having a bearing on this post.