United States of America v. Roderick Morris

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 07-1781
____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee
v.
RODERICK MORRIS,
Appellant
____________
On Appeal from United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D. C. No. 05-cr-00484-1)
District Judge: Honorable Yvette Kane
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 10, 2008
Before: SMITH, HARDIMAN and ROTH , Circuit Judges.
(Filed: April 25, 2008)
____________
OPINION OF THE COURT
____________

-- 1 of 3 --

2
HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.
Roderick Morris appeals his federal drug-trafficking conviction claiming that the
facts underlying his federal conviction are substantially similar to those underlying an
offense on which Morris was acquitted in state court. We will affirm.
I.
Because we write exclusively for the parties, who are familiar with the facts and
proceedings below, we will not revisit them here. The Supreme Court has squarely held
that a federal prosecution is not barred under the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy
Clause by a prior state prosecution for the same act. See Abbate v. United States, 359
U.S. 187 (1959); see also Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121 (1959). Morris does not
dispute that Abbate and Bartkus are fatal to his appeal, but rather argues that the rationale
of those precedents was undermined by the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in
Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969), in which the Supreme Court held that the
Double Jeopardy Clause applies to the states.
Regardless of the merits of this argument, it is assuredly not our place to overturn
Supreme Court precedent. See Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 237 (1997); see also
United States v. Extreme Associates, Inc., 431 F.3d 150, 155-156 (3d Cir. 2005). And as
Morris candidly admits, even the members of this Court who have questioned the
continued viability of Abatte and Bartkus have acknowledged that this is a matter for the
Supreme Court. See United States v. Wilson, 413 F.3d 382, 394 (3d Cir. 2005) (Aldisert,

-- 2 of 3 --

3
J., dissenting) (“The time has come for the Supreme Court to revisit the issue.”); United
States v. Grimes, 641 F.2d 96, 104 (3d Cir. 1981) (“[W]e do not believe we are the proper
forum to overturn a legal directive from the Supreme Court.”).
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

-- 3 of 3 --