United States of America v. Mateo Morales

* After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is
unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See Fed. R. App.
P. 34(a)(2).
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted February 18, 2009 *
Decided February 20, 2009
Before
WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge
KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge
No. 08‐3137
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff‐Appellee,
v.
MATEO MORALES,
Defendant‐Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin.
No. 3:07‐cr‐00166‐bbc‐1
Barbara B. Crabb,
Chief Judge.
O R D E R
Mateo Morales, a federal inmate, was found with a small amount of marijuana and
disciplined by prison officials. Soon thereafter he pleaded guilty to possessing the marijuana,
see 18 U.S.C. § 1791(a)(2), and a district court sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment.
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 08‐3137 Page 2
Morales now appeals, arguing that the prison disciplinary process should have barred the
subsequent criminal proceeding.
This claim is without merit. We, together with every other circuit, have held that prison
disciplinary proceedings do not implicate double jeopardy concerns. See, e.g., United States v.
Simpson, 546 F.3d 394, 397‐98 (6th Cir. 2008); Fogle v. Pierson, 435 F.3d 1252, 1261‐62 (10th Cir.
2006); Meeks v. McBride, 81 F.3d 717, 722 (7th Cir. 1996); Garrity v. Fiedler, 41 F.3d 1150, 1152‐53
(7th Cir. 1994). Thus, there is no reason why Morales could not be disciplined by the prison
and prosecuted by the government for the very same conduct.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --