2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 5-20-2010 

# U SA v . Mich a el M cE a che rn P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 10-1070

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . Mich a e l M cEa che r n" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1295. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1295BL D- 1 4 9 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 10- 1070

___________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. M I CH AE L M CE AC HE RN , A ppel l ant

____________________________________ A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m i nal N o. 08- cr - 00116) D i stri ctJudg e: H on orabl e D on et t a W . A m brose

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed forPoss i bl e Sum m aryA ct i on Pur s uantt o T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

M ar ch 11, 2010 B efore: M cK E E , C hief J ud ge, R E N D E L L and C H A G A R E S , C i rcui tJudg es. ( Fi l ed: M ay20, 2010)

_________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_________ P E R C UR I AM I n N ovember 2008, M i chae l M cEachern w as s ent ence d t o 41 m ont hs i n pr i s on aft erpl eadi ng gui l t yt o ut t er i ng count er fei ts ecur i t i es . H e w ai ved hi s r i ghtt o appea l orM cE ac h ern rese rve d the righ t t o ap p ea l his sen tenc e if itex ce ed ed the s tatu tory 1 m axi m um orunr eas onabl yexce eded the gui del i ne r ange. N ei t hers i tuat i on i s ati s s ue her e. 2 ot herw i s e cha l l enge hi s convi ct i on ors ent ence . I n N ovember2009, M cEachern fi l ed a 1 m o ti o n to d ism iss th e c h arg es a ll eg ing d ef ec ts i n the in d ict m en t. T h e D istri ct C o u rt d e n ied th e m o tio n , an d M c E a c h e rn f iled a tim e lyn o tice o f

a p p e a l. W e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our tt hatM cEachern’ s m ot i on i s m er i t l es s . A s not ed a b o v e , M c E a c h e rn w a iv e d h is rig h t to c h a llen g e h is c o n v ictio n . M o re o v e r, w h ile M cEachern expr es s l ydi s avow ed 28 U . S. C . § 2255 as t he bas i s forhi s m ot i on, he di d not pr ovi de a j ur i s di ct i onal bas i s fort he D i s t r i ctC our tt o acton hi s m ot i on. Fur t her m or e, as not ed byt he governm ent , a mot i on chal l engi ng t he i ns t i tut i on of the pr os ecut i on m us tbe m ad e b ef

o re tri al. S ee F ed . R . C ri m . P . 1 2 (b)(3 )(A ). Sum m aryact i on i s appr opr i at e i f ther e i s no s ubs t ant i al ques t i on pr es ent ed i n t he appea l . See Thi r d C i r cui tL A R 27. 4. For t he above r eas ons , as w el l as t hos e s etfor t h by th e D istric t C o u rt, w e w ill su m m a rilya f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r. S e e T h ird C irc u it I.O .P . 1 0 .6 .