United States v. Olga Echerivel


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Kermit E. Bye, Morris S. Arnold and Bobby E. Shepherd (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [3960581-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Ms. Krisanne Corl Weimer. [4020478] [12-2964]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-2964 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Appellee v. Olga Echerivel lllllllllllllllllllll Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha ____________ Submitted: March 21, 2013 Filed: April 2, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BYE, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Olga Echerivel is serving a 130-month sentence imposed after a jury found her guilty of conspiring to distribute methamphetamine. See United States v. Echerivel, 381 Fed. Appx. 628 (8th Cir. 2010) (unpublished per curiam). She filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion claiming she was entitled to relief based on retroactive application of the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012), and Appellate Case: 12-2964 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/02/2013 Entry ID: 4020478 Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012), in which the Court acknowledged that defendants have a constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel that extends to the plea-bargaining process. Because Ms. Echerivel previously filed a section 2255 motion, the district court1 properly dismissed her motion as successive and filed without authorization. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) (request to file successive § 2255 motion must be certified as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 2244); Boyd v. United States, 304 F.3d 813, 814 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (district court should dismiss unauthorized successive § 2255 motion or, in its discretion, transfer motion to court of appeals). We further conclude that authorization is not warranted, as neither of the recent Supreme Court cases cited by Ms. Echerivel announced a new rule of constitutional law. See Williams v. United States, 705 F.3d 293, 294 (8th Cir. 2013) (per curiam); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2) (court of appeals may authorize successive motion if claim relies on new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. -2- Appellate Case: 12-2964 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/02/2013 Entry ID: 4020478

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?