United States v. Terance Martez Gamble
694 F. App'x 750
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Terance Martez Gamble was convicted in federal court for being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)).
- Alabama state authorities had previously prosecuted and sentenced Gamble for the same underlying conduct.
- Gamble appealed his federal conviction, arguing the federal prosecution violated the Double Jeopardy Clause because he had already been prosecuted and sentenced by Alabama.
- The district court rejected Gamble’s double jeopardy claim and convicted him; the appeal presented a pure legal question reviewed de novo.
- The panel analyzed the dual-sovereignty doctrine and Supreme Court precedent on whether state and federal prosecutions for the same conduct are constitutionally barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal prosecution after state prosecution violates Double Jeopardy | Gamble: federal prosecution is barred because he was already prosecuted and sentenced by Alabama | Government: dual-sovereignty permits separate state and federal prosecutions for the same conduct | Court: Held dual-sovereignty controls; no Double Jeopardy bar to federal prosecution after state prosecution |
Key Cases Cited
- Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187 (1959) (establishes dual-sovereignty permitting separate federal and state prosecutions)
- United States v. Hayes, 589 F.2d 811 (5th Cir. 1979) (Eleventh Circuit precedent following Abbate on dual sovereignty)
- United States v. Bidwell, 393 F.3d 1206 (11th Cir. 2004) (reiterates that Double Jeopardy does not bar state and federal prosecutions)
- Puerto Rico v. Sanchez‑Valle, 136 S. Ct. 1863 (2016) (distinguishes Puerto Rico from States and explains source of state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment)
- United States v. McIntosh, 580 F.3d 1222 (11th Cir. 2009) (sets standard for de novo review of Double Jeopardy legal questions)