US v. Juan Garcia

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:11-cr-00320-D-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998977735].. [12-4349]

Appeal: 12-4349

Doc: 29

Filed: 11/08/2012

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED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

Before WILKINSON and
Senior Circuit Judge.

NIEMEYER,

Decided:

Circuit

November 8, 2012

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-4349

Doc: 29

Filed: 11/08/2012

Pg: 2 of 2

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.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

the

facts

and

We

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