IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

vs. ) Criminal Action No. 16-00090-KD-B

)

TERANCE GAMBLE, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

This action is before the Court on Defendant Terance Gamble’s motion to dismiss the 

Indictment and memorandum in support (docs. 18, 19).

1 Upon consideration and for the reasons 

set forth herein, the motion to dismiss is denied. 

On May 27, 2016, Gamble was convicted in the Mobile County, Alabama Circuit Court, 

Criminal Action No. 2016-2740, as a prohibited person in possession of a firearm in violation of 

Ala. Code § 13A-11-72. Now, in consideration of the same incident of November 29, 2015 that 

gave rise to his state court conviction, he has been indicted in the district court for violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) as a prohibited person in possession of a firearm. 

Gamble argues that the dual prosecution by this Court and the State of Alabama subjects 

him to Double Jeopardy. He relies upon the recent decision in Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. 

Sanchez-Valle, --- S. Ct. ---, 2016 WL 3189527 (June 9, 2016), wherein the Supreme Court held 

that the Double Jeopardy Clause barred the United States and Puerto Rico from separately 

prosecuting Sanchez-Valle for the same conduct under equivalent criminal laws because the 

 1 Defendant’s motion for leave to file the motion to dismiss beyond the time set in the Pretrial 

Order (doc. 17) is GRANTED. 

Case 1:16-cr-00090-KD-B Document 21 Filed 06/21/16 Page 1 of 4
2

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the United States were not separate sovereigns. More 

specifically, Gamble relies upon the concurrence of Justice Ginsberg, joined by Justice Thomas, 

for the premise that dual sovereign prosecutions “warrant attention in a future case in which a 

defendant faces successive prosecutions by parts of the whole USA.” Id. at *11. Gamble asserts 

that “the sovereignty of the United States derives from the people”, and “[t]hose same people, at 

least a sub-group of them, to wit the people of Alabama, confer authority on their state.” Thus, 

he argues “the people cannot prosecute two times for the same offense” (doc. 19, p. 3). 

The following is binding precedent that dictates the Court’s decision. In United States v. 

Hayes, 589 F. 2d 811 (5th Cir. 1979), the Fifth Circuit held as follows: 

Appellant's first group of arguments concern the validity of the federal 

prosecution in light of the previous state prosecution. First, appellant urges this 

court to abandon the well-established rule that there is no constitutional bar to 

successive state and federal prosecutions for the same criminal conduct. The 

leading cases in this area are Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187, 79 S.Ct. 666, 

3 L.Ed.2d 729 (1959) and Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121, 79 S.Ct. 676, 3 

L.Ed.2d 684 (1959). In Abbate, the defendant had first been tried and convicted 

in an Illinois court for conspiring to damage another's property and had been 

sentenced to three months imprisonment. He was subsequently prosecuted by the 

federal government for conspiring to destroy communications facilities operated 

or controlled by the United States, 18 U.S.C. s 1362 (1964). Bartkus involved a 

defendant who was convicted of armed robbery under Illinois law, after having 

been acquitted by a federal jury of robbing a federally insured savings and loan 

association, 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (1964). The Court reasoned that to outlaw 

successive prosecution would enable one sovereign to interfere with the 

administration of the other's criminal law. The classic formulation of this “dual 

sovereignty” concept states:

We have here two sovereignties, deriving power from different 

sources, capable of dealing with the same subject-matter within the 

same territory. . . . Each government in determining what shall be 

an offense against its peace and dignity is exercising its own 

sovereignty, not that of the other. It follows that an act denounced 

as a crime by both national and state sovereignties is an offense 

Case 1:16-cr-00090-KD-B Document 21 Filed 06/21/16 Page 2 of 4
3

against the peace and dignity of both and may be punished by 

each.

United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377, 382, 43 S.Ct. 141, 142, 67 L.Ed. 314 

(1922).

While the Court has consistently expressed concern over the possible 

abuses of dual prosecutions, See Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121, 138, 79 S.Ct. 

676, 3 L.Ed.2d 684 (1959) (“the greatest self-restraint is necessary when that 

federal system yields results with which a court is in little sympathy”); United 

States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377, 383, 43 S.Ct. 141, 67 L.Ed. 314 (1922) (“in the 

benignant spirit” in which the federal system is administered, defendants should 

be subject to dual state-federal prosecutions only “in instances of peculiar 

enormity”), Quoting Fox v. Ohio, 46 U.S. (5 How.) 410, 434, 12 L.Ed. 213 

(1847), and while the Lanza-Abbate-Bartkus doctrine has met harsh criticism, 

See, e. g., Harrison, Federalism and Double Jeopardy; A Study in the Frustration 

of Human Rights, 17 U. Miami L.Rev. 306 (1963); Fisher, Two Sovereignties and 

the Intruding Constitution, 28 U.Chi.L.Rev. 591, 599 (1961); Grant, The Lanza 

Rule of Successive Prosecutions, 32 Colum.L.Rev. 1309, 1329 (1932), the 

doctrine has nonetheless been applied consistently by the Circuit Courts. See, e.g., 

United States v. Harris, 551 F.2d 621 (5th Cir.), Cert. denied, 434 U.S. 836, 98 

S.Ct. 125, 54 L.Ed.2d 98 (1977); United States v. Cordova, 537 F.2d 1073, 1075 

(9th Cir.), Cert. denied, 429 U.S. 960, 97 S.Ct. 385, 50 L.Ed.2d 327 (1976); 

United States v. Villano, 529 F.2d 1046, 1061 (10th Cir.), Cert. denied, 426 U.S. 

953, 96 S.Ct. 3180, 49 L.Ed.2d 1193 (1976); United States v. Johnson, 516 F.2d 

209, 212 (8th Cir.), Cert. denied, 423 U.S. 859, 96 S.Ct. 112, 46 L.Ed.2d 85 

(1975); United States v. Barone, 467 F.2d 247, 250 (2d Cir. 1972). Moreover, the 

Supreme Court has recently reaffirmed the dual sovereignty doctrine. See United 

States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313, 98 S.Ct. 1079, 55 L.Ed.2d 303 (1978) (Indian 

tribe and federal government are dual sovereigns); Rinaldi v. United States, 434 

U.S. 22, 98 S.Ct. 81, 54 L.Ed.2d 207 (1977) (dictum) (dual sovereignty principle 

is inherent in the federal system). Unless and until the Supreme Court overturns 

Abbate, appellant's double jeopardy claim must fail.

United States v. Hayes, 589 F.2d 811, 817-18 (5th Cir. 1979); See also Lloyd v. Marshall, 525 F. 

App'x 889, 892 (11th Cir. 2013) (“Lloyd's argument that his prosecution in the federal and state 

courts violated the Double Jeopardy Clause lacks merit[.]”) (citing Abbate v. United States, 359 

Case 1:16-cr-00090-KD-B Document 21 Filed 06/21/16 Page 3 of 4
4

U.S. 187, 189–96, 79 S.Ct. 666, 668–71, 3 L.Ed.2d 729 (1959)); United States v. Morgan, 337 F. 

App'x 798, 800 (11th Cir. 2009) (“Morgan argues that the instant prosecution violated his right 

against double jeopardy because he was previously convicted in Fulton County, Georgia of the 

same felon-in-possession offense. The argument fails, however, because, as he properly 

concedes, the Supreme Court has rejected it.”) (citing Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187, 

189–96, 79 S.Ct. 666, 668–71, 3 L.Ed.2d 729 (1959)); United States v. Harden, 37 F.3d 595, 

598 (11th Cir.1994) (“[T]he United States Attorney has prosecutorial discretion even if a case is 

first referred for state prosecution because a defendant may be prosecuted and convicted under a 

federal statute following conviction in state court for the same conduct without violating due 

process.” ) (citing Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187, 190–96, 79 S.Ct. 666, 668–71, 3 

L.Ed.2d 729 (1959))); United States v. Brown, 186 F. App'x 914, 918 (11th Cir. 2006) 

(“Furthermore, ‘[t]he Double Jeopardy Clause does not prevent different sovereigns (i.e., a state 

government and the federal government) from punishing a defendant for the same criminal 

conduct.’”) (quoting United States v. Bidwell, 393 F.3d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.2004)). 

Accordingly, unless and until the Supreme Court overturns Abbate, Gamble’s Double 

Jeopardy claim must likewise fail. 

DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of June 2016. 

s / Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cr-00090-KD-B Document 21 Filed 06/21/16 Page 4 of 4