Case: 19-10492 Date Filed: 03/24/2020 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-10492
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cr-00451-ELR-JSA-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
EDD JASON HUGHES,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 19-10980
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cr-00451-ELR-JSA-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Case: 19-10492 Date Filed: 03/24/2020 Page: 2 of 4
versus
EDD JASON HUGHES,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(March 24, 2020)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, GRANT and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Edd Jason Hughes appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm in the
furtherance of a drug trafficking crime,
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). He argues that
the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss his indictment because the
successive prosecutions of his crimes by the State of Georgia and the United
States, after conducting a joint investigation, violated the Double Jeopardy Clause.
We affirm.
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that no
person may “be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb” “for the same offense.” U.S.
Const. amend. V; United States v. Baptista-Rodriguez,
17 F.3d 1354, 1360 (11th
Cir. 1994). But under the dual-sovereignty doctrine, a defendant may be subject to
successive prosecutions by two sovereigns for the violation of each of their laws if
2
Case: 19-10492 Date Filed: 03/24/2020 Page: 3 of 4
his conduct gives rise to two separate offenses. Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle,
136 S. Ct. 1863, 1867 (2016). Because states and the federal governments are
separate sovereigns, a prior state conviction does not bar the federal government
from prosecuting a defendant for the same conduct. Abbate v. United States,
359
U.S. 187, 194-95 (1959). In Gamble v. United States, the Supreme Court
reaffirmed the dual-sovereignty doctrine on the ground that “where there are two
sovereigns, there are two laws, and two ‘offences.’”
139 S. Ct. 1960, 1965 (2019).
In Baptista-Rodriguez, we rejected an argument that one sovereign’s control
over the investigation of another provides an exception to the dual-sovereignty
doctrine for a sham prosecution:
Every sovereign has the inherent power to determine what shall be an
offense against its authority and to punish such offenses. This power
is manifested principally through the decision to prosecute—the
choice to charge suspected criminals with commission of a crime and
to pursue the legal process for obtaining convictions against them. To
be sure, investigation and apprehension usually are necessary
predicates to the punishment of criminals. But prosecution is the
formal act by which the government seeks that punishment.
Independent sovereigns do not forfeit their right to charge and punish
violations of their own laws because some other sovereign had the
resources and separate interest to investigate the crimes and expose
the criminals.
17 F.3d at 1361–62 (citations omitted). We explained that, even if such an
exception existed, it would require “a showing that one sovereign controlled,
dominated, or manipulated the prosecution of the defendant by the other.”
Id. at
1362 (emphasis in original).
3
Case: 19-10492 Date Filed: 03/24/2020 Page: 4 of 4
The district court did not err in denying Hughes’s motion to dismiss his
indictment. As the Supreme Court made clear last year in Gamble, Hughes’s
prosecution by the federal government, after he was convicted and sentenced in
Fulton County, Georgia, for the same conduct, did not violate the Double Jeopardy
Clause. His successive prosecutions were permissible under the dual-sovereignty
doctrine. And Hughes’s argument that the doctrine is inapplicable because federal
officials participated in an earlier joint investigation with state officials is
foreclosed by precedent.
AFFIRMED.
4
