Case Explained: Non-Argument Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DANIEL OCHOA

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Filed: 2026-07-01 Docket: 1:14-cr-20674-DSL-1 The eleventh-circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Daniel Ochoa’s motion to correct plain errors under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b). The court held that Rule 52(b) does not apply to district courts, as it grants only courts of appeals the limited power to consider forfeited errors affecting substantial rights. Furthermore, the court determined that even if the motion were construed under different remedial frameworks, it would remain cognizable. If treated as a Rule 33 motion for a new trial, it was untimely because it was filed nine years after conviction, exceeding the rule’s strict time limits of three years for new evidence or fourteen days for other grounds. If treated as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, it would constitute an unauthorized second or successive motion; since Ochoa had not obtained prior authorization from the court of appeals to file such a motion, the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to consider it. Consequently, relief was denied, and the conviction stands. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.