Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David L. SHEPARD, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-10-21
Citations: 78 F. App'x 387
Docket Number: No. 03-40124
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David L. SHEPARD, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 78
Pages: 387–388

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David L. SHEPARD, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-40124.
Conference Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 21, 2003.
David Haskell Henderson, Jr, Assistant US Attorney, Beaumont, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
James A. Delee, Port Arthur, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
David L. Shepard ("Shepard"), federal prisoner #02124-593, appeals the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment charging him with assault with a dangerous weapon and possession of a weapon by an inmate. Shepard argues that the criminal prosecution against him is barred by double jeopardy because he was charged in a prison disciplinary proceeding for the same actions which are charged in the indictment. Shepard further contends that the Government is collaterally estopped from bringing the charges because he was not found guilty of serious assault or possession of a weapon in the prison disciplinary proceedings.
Shepard's double jeopardy claim is meritless because "prison disciplinary hearings do not bar future criminal prosecutions." United States v. Galan, 82 F.3d 639, 640 (5th Cir.1996). Shepard's collateral estoppel argument is similarly frivolous. To the extent he raises the collateral estoppel claim under the Double Jeopardy Clause, it is unavailing. See id. To the extent that he raises it independently, it is not cognizable. See Stringer v. Williams, 161 F.3d 259, 263-64 (5th Cir.1998).
As all of Shepard's claims are clearly precluded by established precedent, the appeal is frivolous and we dismiss it as such. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.