to a defendant whenever, and however many times, he chooses to play it.” Accordingly, the MJ recommended that the motion be dismissed without addressing the merits. The district court adopted the MJ’s recommendation in full. This appeal followed. II. We first determine whether we have jurisdiction over this appeal. Symantec Corp. v. Global Impact, Inc., 559 F.3d 922, 923 (9th Cir.2009) (“Although neither party raised the issue of our jurisdiction to entertain this appeal, we have a duty to consider it sua sponte”). Our appellate jurisdiction extends to all “final decisions” of the district courts. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. In criminal eases, a final decision is rendered upon imposition of the defendant’s sentence. Parr v. United States, 351 U.S. 513, 518, 76 S.Ct. 912, 100 L.Ed. 1377 (1956) (<HOLDING>), quoting Berman v. United States, 302 U.S.
holding that a district court judgment is not a final judgment appealable by the defendant unless it includes the final adjudication and the final sentence recognizing that a final judgment may provide for a particular standard upon which to modify a final judgment holding that final judgment in a criminal case means sentence holding that an order disqualifying counsel in a civil case is not a final judgment holding that a victim may not bring an appeal from a final judgment in a criminal case asserting that her rights under  3771 were violated