United States of America v. Joel K. Parker

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
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOEL K. PARKER,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-10108
D.C. No. 2:06-CR-00109-PMP
MEMORANDUM *
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
FILED
MAR 08 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

EF/Research 09-10108 2
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.

-- 2 of 2 --