United States v. Roman , 608 F. App'x 694 ( 2015 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT June 23, 2015
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 14-4126
(D.C. No. 2:13-CR-00602-DN-DBP-1)
ROBERTO MIRAMONTES (D. Utah)
ROMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
_________________________________
Before GORSUCH, McKAY, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Mr. Roberto Roman was found guilty on state charges of possession
of a dangerous weapon by a restricted person and tampering with evidence;
he was acquitted on an additional charge of aggravated murder. He was
later charged in federal court on 11 counts growing out of the same events.
Mr. Roman argued that the federal prosecution violated the Double
*
The parties do not request oral argument, and the Court has
determined that oral argument would not materially aid our consideration
of the appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). Thus, we
have decided the appeal based on the briefs.
Our order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except
under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.
Jeopardy Clause. The federal district court rejected this argument, and he
renews the argument on appeal.
We must decide: Does the Double Jeopardy Clause prevent federal
authorities from prosecuting individuals for federal crimes after state
prosecutions for state crimes? We conclude that the dual prosecutions
would not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause because our precedent treats
federal and state prosecutorial entities as independent sovereigns.
I. Standard of Review
In reviewing the district court’s ruling, we engage in de novo review.
United States v. Barrett, 496 F.3d 1079, 1117 (10th Cir. 2007).
II. Double Jeopardy
The Double Jeopardy Clause provides that no person should “be
twice put in jeopardy” for the same offense. U.S. CONST. Amend. V. In
applying this clause, the Supreme Court has recognized the “dual
sovereignty doctrine,” which provides that two crimes are committed when
a defendant commits a single act violating the laws of separate sovereigns.
Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82, 88 (1985) (quoting United States v. Lanza,
260 U.S. 377, 382 (1922)). Under this doctrine, prosecution of Mr. Roman
by two separate sovereignties did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.
2
Mr. Roman asks us to overrule these Supreme Court precedents. We
cannot do that. See United States v. Barrett, 496 F.3d 1079, 1119 (10th
Cir. 2007) (“To the extent [the defendant] questions the continued viability
of the dual sovereignty doctrine . . . this court is bound to follow [United
States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377 (1922)] . . . until such time as the Supreme
Court overrules it.”).
Under the Supreme Court’s dual sovereignty doctrine, the federal
prosecution did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. Thus, we affirm.
Entered for the Court
Robert E. Bacharach
Circuit Judge
3