2008 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

4-25-2008

USA v. Morris

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 07-1781

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Morris" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1328.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1328
NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

____________
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,
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.