United States v. Eucharia Okeke

703 F. App'x 595
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedNovember 21, 2017
Docket16-50308
StatusUnpublished

This text of 703 F. App'x 595 (United States v. Eucharia Okeke) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Eucharia Okeke, 703 F. App'x 595 (9th Cir. 2017).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

1. The district court wasn’t “put on notice” that Okeke has any difficulty understanding English. See United States v. Si, 333 F.3d 1041, 1044 (9th Cir. 2003). Nor does the record indicate that Okeke has difficulty understanding English. Therefore the district court didn’t err by failing to appoint an interpreter.

2. As a general rule, we don’t review ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal, and no exception to that rule applies here. See United States v. Benford, 574 F.3d 1228, 1231 (9th Cir. 2009).

3. We dismiss the sentencing portion of Okeke’s appeal because she knowingly and voluntarily waived her right to appeal her sentence. See United States v. Lococo, 514 F.3d 860, 866 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam),

AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Tony Si
333 F.3d 1041 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)
United States v. Benford
574 F.3d 1228 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Lococo
514 F.3d 860 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
703 F. App'x 595, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-eucharia-okeke-ca9-2017.