United States of America v. Wai Leung Chu, aka Paul Chu

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WAI LEUNG CHU, aka Paul Chu,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-50094
D.C. No. 2:01-cr-00720-DDP-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 10, 2010**
Pasadena, California
Before: TROTT, WARDLAW, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Wai Leung Chu appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion
for an immediate supervised release revocation hearing. Chu is currently in prison
for crimes he committed in New Jersey while he was on supervised release
FILED
DEC 17 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
following the completion of his prison sentence for crimes he committed in the
Central District of California. Because the denial of Chu’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 (1984) (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted). Because Chu challenges the delay before the
revocation hearing -- not the hearing itself -- 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 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). The district court’s order does not. For these
reasons, this appeal is
DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --