1

The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-2000

___________

United States of America, *

*

 Plaintiff – Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Karrie L. Guler, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant – Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 25, 2008

Filed: October 8, 2008

___________

Before MURPHY, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Karrie Guler was convicted by a jury of assault on a federal agent, 18 U.S.C.

§ 111, and sentenced to sixty days imprisonment. Guler appeals, contending that the

district court1

 erred in declining to dismiss the indictment on grounds of double

jeopardy. 
2

In the district court Guler made a different and even weaker double jeopardy

argument—that her prosecution for assault on a federal officer was barred by her

earlier conviction for violating the order of a federal agent.

-2-

Guler's conviction arose from her conduct at a campsite in the Ozark National

Scenic Riverways in July 2007. National Park Service rangers received several

complaints of a domestic disturbance in the campground, including reports that Guler

had hit her boyfriend with a lawn chair and that he had thrown lighter fluid on her leg.

Two rangers arrived at the campsite and found an intoxicated and confrontational

Guler. She resisted the rangers' orders and kicked one of them in the chest as she was

being placed in a patrol car. 

Guler received tickets for four violations of the federal regulations governing

conduct on National Park Service land. They charged her for being under the

influence of alcohol; disorderly conduct—fighting; disorderly conduct—use of

language; and violating a lawful order of a federal agent. On her ticket for disorderly

conduct—fighting, the statement of probable cause refers to Guler's altercation with

her boyfriend, but not to her kicking the ranger. Guler pled guilty to the four ticketed

charges and paid $700 in fines and fees.

Guler was subsequently indicted for assaulting a federal officer, in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 111, and convicted after a jury trial. She now contends that double

jeopardy bars her conviction for that offense because it was based on the same

conduct as her guilty plea to disorderly conduct—fighting.2

 Two offenses are not the

same for double jeopardy purposes if each offense requires proof of an element or fact

not required by the other. Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932).

The disorderly conduct—fighting offense, codified at 36 C.F.R. § 2.34(a)(1), requires

an "intent to cause public alarm, nuisance, jeopardy or violence, or knowingly or

recklessly creating a risk thereof." In contrast, only general intent to commit assault

is necessary for conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 111. The assault offense only applies

if the victim is a federal officer or employee engaged in official duties. Disorderly
-3-

conduct—fighting has no such element. We conclude that Guler was punished for

two separate offenses involving conduct directed at different victims and occurring

at different times, in violation of separate provisions of the law with distinct elements.

Since the district court did not err in rejecting Guler's double jeopardy challenge

to the indictment, we affirm the judgment.

_____________________________