United States v. Eucharia Okeke
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.
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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
703 F. App'x 595, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-eucharia-okeke-ca9-2017.