United States v. Hector Tapia Anchondo

990 F.2d 1261 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hector Tapia ANCHONDO, Defendant-Appellant. No. 91-50686. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Nov. 2, 1992. Decided March 25, 1993. Before: BEEZER, KOZINSKI and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2 Anchondo was tried for cocaine offenses, but the jury hung. He moved to dismiss the indictment. The district court denied the motion and set the case for another trial. This is an interlocutory appeal of the denial of the motion to dismiss. Anchondo claims that a new trial would violate the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. We hold that it would not, and affirm. 3 We review the denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment on the grounds of double jeopardy de novo. United States v. Goland, 897 F.2d 405, 408 (9th Cir.1990). We have jurisdiction under Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 662 (1977). 4 It has long been the…