United States v. Joel Parker

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 08 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 09-10108 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:06-CR-00109-PMP v. MEMORANDUM * JOEL K. PARKER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Philip M. Pro, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 16, 2010 ** Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 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 * 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. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). EF/Research grounds. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (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. EF/Research 2 09-10108