The ["Petite" policy](https://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-2000-authority-us-attorney-criminal-division-mattersprior-approvals#9-2.031) ([Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Jeopardy_Clause#%22Petite%22_policy)) is a set of criteria (based on policy, not the Constitution or statute) the federal Department of Justice (USDOJ) has for prosecuting when there has already been a state trial on the same issue. The general rule is that the federal government will *not* prosecute in such a case, but there are exceptions.


Jose Ines Garcia Zarate was convicted by a California state court of being a felon in possession of a firearm, which carries a sentence of 16 months to 3 years. [1](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/30/us/kate-steinle-murder-trial.html)


The USDOJ has now charged ([announcement](https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/jose-inez-garcia-zarate-face-federal-firearm-charges-northern-district-california), [indictment](https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1015981/download?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery)) Garcia Zarate with two crimes:


1. Felon in Possession of Firearm and Ammunition
2. Alien in Possession of Firearm and Ammunition


*1* seems to be essentially the same charge, and *2* seems pretty close (there's only one criminal transaction).


Is this compliant with the "Petite" policy?


I'll put an answer, but I'm looking forward to seeing other answers and comments.



Is re-charging Jose Ines Garcia Zarate compliant with the "Petite" policy?