United States v. Hector Zapata-Perez

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
OCT 14 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-10217
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 5:09-cr-01092-JW-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
HECTOR ZAPATA-PEREZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Beth Labson Freeman, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted September 21, 2016
Pasadena, California
Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
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.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The district court’s order is not “effectively unreviewable on appeal from a
final judgment.” Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259, 265 (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 (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 (1989) (quoting MacDonald, 435 U.S. at 860).
For these reasons, this appeal is DISMISSED.
2