UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eucharia Ifeyinwa OKEKE, AKA UK, Defendant-Appellant, 703 F. App'x 595

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.