Case ID: f-appx_669/html/0492-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hector ZAPATA-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-10217
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted September 21, 2016 Pasadena, California
    Filed October 14, 2016
    
      Anne M. Voigts, Assistant U.S. Attorney, J. Douglas Wilson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Lochlan Francis Shelfer, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Hector Zapata-Perez appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to revoke his term of supervised release and sentence him in absentia. Because the denial of Zapata-Perez’s motion is not a final or appealable collateral order, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal.

The district court’s order is not “effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.” Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259, 265, 104 S.Ct. 1051, 79 L.Ed.2d 288 (1984) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Because Zapata-Perez in effect challenges the delay on holding a revocation hearing, postjudgment review “does not cause or compound the deprivation already suffered.” United States v. MacDonald, 435 U.S. 850, 861, 98 S.Ct. 1547, 56 L.Ed.2d 18 (1978) (denial of constitutional speedy trial motion is not immediately appealable); see also United States v. Mehrmanesh, 652 F.2d 766, 769-70 (9th Cir. 1981) (denial of motion to dismiss under Speedy Trial Act is not immediately appealable). Collateral orders reviewable on interlocutory appeal involve “‘an asserted right the legal and practical value of which would be destroyed if it were not vindicated before trial.’ ” Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, 489 U.S. 794, 799, 109 S.Ct. 1494, 103 L.Ed.2d 879 (1989) (quoting MacDonald, 435 U.S. at 860, 98 S.Ct. 1547).

For these reasons, this appeal is DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.