Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hector ZAPATA-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-10-14
Citations: 669 F. App'x 492
Docket Number: No. 15-10217
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hector ZAPATA-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 669
Pages: 492–493

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.