United States v. Terance Martez Gamble , 694 F. App'x 750 ( 2017 )

Case: 16-16760 Date Filed: 07/28/2017 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-16760
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cr-00090-KD-B-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TERANCE MARTEZ GAMBLE,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
________________________
(July 28, 2017)
Before HULL, WILSON, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Terance Martez Gamble appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm
by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Gamble argues that the
Case: 16-16760 Date Filed: 07/28/2017 Page: 2 of 3
district court erred by determining that double jeopardy did not prohibit the federal
government from prosecuting Gamble for the same conduct for which he had been
prosecuted and sentenced for by the State of Alabama.
We review de novo, as a pure question of law, any possible violation of the
Double Jeopardy Clause. United States v. McIntosh, 580 F.3d 1222, 1226 (11th
Cir. 2009).
The Supreme Court has determined that prosecution in federal and state
court for the same conduct does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause because
the state and federal governments are separate sovereigns. Abbate v. United States,
359 U.S. 187, 195, 79 S. Ct. 666 (1959). We have followed the precedent set by
Abbate in Hayes, stating that unless and until the Supreme Court overturns Abbate,
the double jeopardy claim must fail based on the dual sovereignty doctrine. United
States v. Hayes, 589 F.2d 811, 817-18 (5th Cir. 1979). We have, more recently,
stated that “[t]he Double Jeopardy Clause does not prevent different sovereigns
(i.e., a state government and the federal government) from punishing a defendant
for the same criminal conduct.” United States v. Bidwell, 393 F.3d 1206, 1209
(11th Cir. 2004).
In Sanchez-Valle, the Supreme Court stated that the states were separate
sovereigns from the federal government because the States rely on authority
originally belonging to them before admission to the Union and preserved to them
2
Case: 16-16760 Date Filed: 07/28/2017 Page: 3 of 3
by the Tenth Amendment. Puerto Rico v. Sanchez-Valle, 579 U.S. __, __, 136 S.
Ct. 1863, 1871 (2016). It explained that prior to forming the Union, the States
possessed separate and independent sources of power and authority, which they
continue to draw upon in enacting and enforcing criminal laws. Id. State
prosecutions therefore have their most ancient roots in an “inherent sovereignty”
unconnected to, and indeed pre-existing, the U.S. Congress. Id. The Supreme
Court differentiated Puerto Rico from the States, stating that it was not a sovereign
distinct from the United States because it had derived its authority from the U.S.
Congress. Id. at 1873-74. It concluded that the Double Jeopardy Clause bars both
Puerto Rico and the United States from prosecuting a single person for the same
conduct under equivalent criminal laws. Id. at 1876.
The district court did not err by determining that double jeopardy did not
prohibit the federal government from prosecuting Gamble for the same conduct for
which he had been prosecuted and sentenced for by the State of Alabama, because
based on Supreme Court precedent, dual sovereignty allows a state government
and the federal government to prosecute an individual for the same crime, when
the States rely on authority originally belonging to them before admission to the
Union and preserved to them by the Tenth Amendment. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
3