Case ID: f-appx_599/html/0757-02.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. Phillip Dale SELFA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-10565.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted April 13, 2015.
    
    Filed April 15, 2015.
    Michelle Rodriguez, Assistant U.S., US-SAC-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Phillip Dale Selfa, Sacramento, CA, pro se.
    William E. Bonham, Law Offices of William E. Bonham, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: KOZINSKI and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and PONSOR, Senior District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Michael A. Ponsor, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation.
    
   ORDER

Defendant Phillip Selfa was indicted for bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). He appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment for vindictive prosecution. We lack jurisdiction to consider his appeal because the denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment for vindictive prosecution is neither a “final decision” of the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 nor a collateral order subject to interlocutory review. See United States v. Hollywood Motor Car Co., 458 U.S. 263, 264-70, 102 S.Ct. 3081, 73 L.Ed.2d 754 (1982) (per curiam) (“We do not reach the question of prosecutorial vindictiveness, for we hold that the Court of Appeals was without jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to review the District Court’s interlocutory order refusing to dismiss the indictment.”); United States v. McKinley, 38 F.3d 428, 431 (9th Cir.1994) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction the interlocutory appeal of a denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment for prosecutorial vindictiveness).

DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.