United States v. Manuel Gordillo-Escandon
706 F. App'x 119
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Manuel de Jesus Gordillo-Escandon was indicted in federal court in South Carolina on drug and firearm charges after prior state convictions for related drug and firearm offenses.
- Gordillo-Escandon moved to dismiss the federal indictment, arguing it violated the Double Jeopardy Clause and the Full Faith and Credit Act (28 U.S.C. § 1738) because of the earlier state convictions.
- The district court denied the motion to dismiss, finding neither constitutional double jeopardy nor the Full Faith and Credit Act barred the federal prosecution.
- Gordillo-Escandon appealed interlocutorily under Abney v. United States to challenge the denial before trial.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed the double jeopardy claim de novo and applied South Carolina res judicata principles under the Full Faith and Credit Act.
- The court concluded federal prosecution by a separate sovereign is not barred by prior state prosecution (dual sovereignty), and that the federal government is not in privity with the state for res judicata purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal prosecution after state convictions violates Double Jeopardy | Gordillo-Escandon: successive prosecutions punish same conduct and thus violate Double Jeopardy | Government: dual sovereignty allows separate state and federal prosecutions for same conduct | Denied — dual sovereignty controls; Abbate remains binding, so no double jeopardy bar |
| Whether a state judgment precludes federal prosecution under the Full Faith and Credit Act (res judicata) | Gordillo-Escandon: South Carolina judgment should have preclusive effect and bar federal charges | Government: federal government is not the same as or in privity with the state, so res judicata does not apply | Denied — South Carolina res judicata elements not satisfied; federal government not in privity with state |
Key Cases Cited
- Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651 (Sup. Ct. 1977) (permits interlocutory appeal of certain double jeopardy denials)
- United States v. Schnittker, 807 F.3d 77 (4th Cir. 2015) (standard for de novo review of preserved double jeopardy claims)
- United States v. Alvarado, 440 F.3d 191 (4th Cir. 2006) (dual sovereignty doctrine applied to state and federal offenses)
- Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187 (Sup. Ct. 1959) (federal prosecution not barred by prior state prosecution for same acts)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (Sup. Ct. 2005) (Full Faith and Credit Act requires applying state preclusion law)
- In re Genesys Data Techs., Inc., 204 F.3d 124 (4th Cir. 2000) (applying state res judicata rules under Full Faith and Credit)
- Sunrise Corp. v. City of Myrtle Beach, 420 F.3d 322 (4th Cir. 2005) (elements required under South Carolina law to establish res judicata)
- United States v. Smith, 446 F.2d 200 (4th Cir. 1971) (federal government not in privity with state for collateral estoppel/res judicata purposes)