United States v. Juan Garcia

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4349
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JUAN ANTONIO GARCIA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (5:11-cr-00320-D-1)
Submitted: October 5, 2012 Decided: November 8, 2012
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Raymond C. Tarlton,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer
P. May-Parker, Joshua L. Rogers, Assistant United States
Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Juan Garcia appeals the district court’s order denying
his motion to dismiss the indictment charging him with
possession of a prohibited object, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1791(a)(2) (2006). ∗ He asserts that the Double Jeopardy Clause
protects him from being indicted for the same misconduct that
resulted in his placement in prison disciplinary segregation.
We have previously rejected this argument. Patterson v. United
States, 183 F.2d 327, 328 (4th Cir. 1950); see United States v.
Simpson, 546 F.3d 394, 398 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (collecting
cases and holding that “[t]he Double Jeopardy Clause was not
intended to inhibit prison discipline, and disciplinary changes
in prison conditions do not preclude subsequent criminal
punishment for the same misconduct”); United States v. Brown, 59
F.3d 102, 103-04 (9th Cir. 1995) (same).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
∗
The denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment on double
jeopardy grounds is a final, appealable order. Abney v. United
States, 431 U.S. 651, 662 (1977).
2