United States v. Tony Silva Cordova, Raymond Velarde Duran and Anthony Moreno Jimenez

414 F.2d 277
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJuly 11, 1969
Docket27028-27030
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 414 F.2d 277 (United States v. Tony Silva Cordova, Raymond Velarde Duran and Anthony Moreno Jimenez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth 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. Tony Silva Cordova, Raymond Velarde Duran and Anthony Moreno Jimenez, 414 F.2d 277 (5th Cir. 1969).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

These three appeals arise out of the same facts and involve the same issue. 1 Two of the appellants were indicted for concealing and facilitating the transportation and concealment of a quantity of heroin, 21 U.S.C.A. § 174, and for introducing and attempting to introduce into the grounds of a Federal Correctional Institution the same heroin, 18 U.S.C.A. § 1791. Jimenez was indicted for the same first count, but the second count against him was for possession of heroin at a Federal Correctional Institution, 18 U.S.C.A. § 13, Vernon’s Ann. Tex.Pen.Code, art. 725b, § 2(a). Each appellant was convicted in a non-jury trial and sentenced to ten years on each count, the terms to run concurrently. Each appellant was also subjected to administrative punishment by the loss of accumulated “good time.”

The single defense raised by the appellants is that the combination of administrative punishment and criminal conviction placed them in double jeopardy in violation of the Fifth Amendment. 2 This contention is without merit. Administrative discipline of a prisoner does not prohibit criminal prosecution for the same event. Keaveny v. United States, *278 405 F.2d 821, (5th Cir. 1969); Mullican v. United States, 252 F.2d 398, 70 A.L.R. 2d 1217 (5th Cir. 1958); United States v. Shapiro, 383 F.2d 680 (7th Cir. 1967).

The judgment is affirmed.

1

. Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of this Court, this ease has been placed on the Summary Calendar for disposition without oral argument. See Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 409 F.2d 804 (5th Cir. 1969); Floyd v. Resor, 409 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1969).

2

. U.S.Const., amend. V: “ * * * nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb * *

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

Related

STATE OF FLORIDA v. FRANKLIN JONES
230 So. 3d 22 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
Turner v. Johnson
46 F. Supp. 2d 655 (S.D. Texas, 1999)
United States v. Mayes
158 F.3d 1215 (Eleventh Circuit, 1998)
United States v. Coder
39 M.J. 1006 (U.S. Army Court of Military Review, 1994)
People v. Lewis
386 N.E.2d 910 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1979)
Robert Daigle v. Hall
387 F. Supp. 652 (D. Massachusetts, 1975)
Johnson v. Anderson
370 F. Supp. 1373 (D. Delaware, 1974)
Kenneth Alexander Hutchison v. United States
450 F.2d 930 (Tenth Circuit, 1971)
United States v. Ralph Michael Lepiscopo
429 F.2d 258 (Fifth Circuit, 1970)
Arthur Gilchrist v. United States
427 F.2d 1132 (Fifth Circuit, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
414 F.2d 277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-tony-silva-cordova-raymond-velarde-duran-and-anthony-ca5-1969.