USA V. PHILLIP SELFA, No. 13-10565 (9th Cir. 2015)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 15 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 13-10565 D.C. No. 2:12-cr-00324-JAM-1 v. ORDER* PHILLIP DALE SELFA, Defendant - Appellant. 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. 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 * 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. 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. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.