United States v. Morales

312 F. App'x 823
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
DecidedFebruary 20, 2009
DocketNo. 08-3137
StatusPublished

This text of 312 F. App'x 823 (United States v. Morales) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Morales, 312 F. App'x 823 (7th Cir. 2009).

Opinion

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 [824]*824process 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Fogle v. Pierson
435 F.3d 1252 (Tenth Circuit, 2006)
Daniel J. Garrity v. Patrick Fiedler
41 F.3d 1150 (Seventh Circuit, 1994)
United States v. Simpson
546 F.3d 394 (Sixth Circuit, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
312 F. App'x 823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-morales-ca7-2009.