Opinion
No. 13-10565
04-15-2015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PHILLIP DALE SELFA, Defendant - Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 2:12-cr-00324-JAM-1 ORDER Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 13, 2015 San Francisco, California Before: KOZINSKI and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and PONSOR, Senior District Judge.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
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.
--------
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 (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.