UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

ROBERTO MIRAMONTES 

ROMAN, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 14-4126 

(D.C. No. 2:13-CR-00602-DN-DBP-1)

(D. Utah) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before GORSUCH, McKAY, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Mr. Roberto Roman was found guilty on state charges of possession 

of a dangerous weapon by a restricted person and tampering with evidence; 

he was acquitted on an additional charge of aggravated murder. He was 

later charged in federal court on 11 counts growing out of the same events. 

Mr. Roman argued that the federal prosecution violated the Double 

 

*

 The parties do not request oral argument, and the Court has 

determined that oral argument would not materially aid our consideration 

of the appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). Thus, we 

have decided the appeal based on the briefs. 

 Our order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except 

under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

June 23, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 14-4126 Document: 01019448753 Date Filed: 06/23/2015 Page: 1 
2 

Jeopardy Clause. The federal district court rejected this argument, and he 

renews the argument on appeal. 

 We must decide: Does the Double Jeopardy Clause prevent federal 

authorities from prosecuting individuals for federal crimes after state 

prosecutions for state crimes? We conclude that the dual prosecutions 

would not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause because our precedent treats 

federal and state prosecutorial entities as independent sovereigns. 

I. Standard of Review 

 In reviewing the district court’s ruling, we engage in de novo review. 

United States v. Barrett, 496 F.3d 1079, 1117 (10th Cir. 2007). 

II. Double Jeopardy 

 The Double Jeopardy Clause provides that no person should “be 

twice put in jeopardy” for the same offense. U.S. CONST. Amend. V. In 

applying this clause, the Supreme Court has recognized the “dual 

sovereignty doctrine,” which provides that two crimes are committed when 

a defendant commits a single act violating the laws of separate sovereigns. 

Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82, 88 (1985) (quoting United States v. Lanza, 

260 U.S. 377, 382 (1922)). Under this doctrine, prosecution of Mr. Roman 

by two separate sovereignties did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. 

Appellate Case: 14-4126 Document: 01019448753 Date Filed: 06/23/2015 Page: 2 
3 

 Mr. Roman asks us to overrule these Supreme Court precedents. We 

cannot do that. See United States v. Barrett, 496 F.3d 1079, 1119 (10th 

Cir. 2007) (“To the extent [the defendant] questions the continued viability 

of the dual sovereignty doctrine . . . this court is bound to follow [United 

States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377 (1922)] . . . until such time as the Supreme 

Court overrules it.”). 

Under the Supreme Court’s dual sovereignty doctrine, the federal 

prosecution did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. Thus, we affirm. 

 

 Entered for the Court 

 Robert E. Bacharach 

 Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 14-4126 Document: 01019448753 Date Filed: 06/23/2015 Page: 3