Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mateo MORALES, Defendant-Appellant.

ORDER

Mateo Morales, a federal inmate, was found with a small amount of marijuana and disciplined by prison officials. Soon thereafter he pleaded guilty to possessing the marijuana, see 18 U.S.C. § 1791(a)(2), and a district court sentenced him to six months' imprisonment. Morales now appeals, arguing that the prison disciplinary process should have barred the subsequent criminal proceeding.

This claim is without merit. We, together with every other circuit, have held that prison disciplinary proceedings do not implicate double jeopardy concerns. See, e.g., United States v. Simpson, 546 F.3d 394, 397-98 (6th Cir. 2008); Fogle v. Pierson, 435 F.3d 1252, 1261-62 (10th Cir. 2006); Meeks v. McBride, 81 F.3d 717, 722 (7th Cir. 1996); Garrity v. Fiedler, 41 F.3d 1150, 1152-53 (7th Cir. 1994). Thus, there is no reason why Morales could not be disciplined by the prison and prosecuted by the government for the very same conduct.

AFFIRMED. J.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

U.S. v. MORALES
(Feb 20, 2009)