Case ID: f-appx_703/html/0595-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eucharia Ifeyinwa OKEKE, AKA UK, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-50308
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 17, 2017  Pasadena, California
    Filed November 21, 2017
    L. Ashley Aull, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Vijay Shanker, Esquire, Ellen Meltzer, Special Counsel, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Fay Arfa, Esquire, Attorney, Fay Ara, A Law Corporation, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: KOZINSKI and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and GETTLEMAN, District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Robert W. Gettleman, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
    
   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.