Case ID: f-appx_369/html/0866-01.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. Joel K. PARKER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-10108.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed March 8, 2010.
    Robert Lawrence Ellman, Esquire, Peter Stuart Levitt, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Richard Frankoff, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Joel K. Parker appeals from the district court’s order denying his pro se motion to dismiss his indictment on double jeopardy and collateral estoppel grounds. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396,18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Parker’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. The appellant has filed a pro se supplemental brief. The government has not filed an answering brief.

Our review of the record indicates that we lack jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal because Parker failed to raise a “colorable” double jeopardy claim. See, e.g., United States v. Bhatia, 545 F.3d 757, 759 (9th Cir.2008); see also United States v. Zone, 403 F.3d 1101, 1104 (9th Cir.2005) (per curiam). Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw in this appeal is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.