Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-10-01070/USCOURTS-ca3-10-01070-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael McEachern
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

BLD-149 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-1070

___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

MICHAEL MCEACHERN,

 Appellant

____________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Criminal No. 08-cr-00116)

District Judge: Honorable Donetta W. Ambrose

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to 

Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

March 11, 2010

Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, RENDELL and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: May 20, 2010)

_________

OPINION OF THE COURT

_________

PER CURIAM

In November 2008, Michael McEachern was sentenced to 41 months in prison

after pleading guilty to uttering counterfeit securities. He waived his right to appeal or

Case: 10-1070 Document: 003110151065 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/20/2010
 McEachern reserved the right to appeal his sentence if it exceeded the statutory 1

maximum or unreasonably exceeded the guideline range. Neither situation is at issue

here.

2

otherwise challenge his conviction or sentence. In November 2009, McEachern filed a 1

motion to dismiss the charges alleging defects in the indictment. The District Court

denied the motion, and McEachern filed a timely notice of appeal.

We agree with the District Court that McEachern’s motion is meritless. As noted

above, McEachern waived his right to challenge his conviction. Moreover, while

McEachern expressly disavowed 28 U.S.C. § 2255 as the basis for his motion, he did not

provide a jurisdictional basis for the District Court to act on his motion. Furthermore, as

noted by the government, a motion challenging the institution of the prosecution must be

made before trial. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(A).

Summary action is appropriate if there is no substantial question presented in the

appeal. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4. For the above reasons, as well as those set forth by

the District Court, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order. See Third Circuit

I.O.P. 10.6. 

Case: 10-1070 Document: 003110151065 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/20/2010