Opinion ID: 1314955
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Coté's Cross-Appeal

Text: Coté cross-appeals the district court's decision to the extent it fails to dismiss the Indictment against him on statute of limitations and double jeopardy grounds. Both contentions are meritless. As previously discussed, Coté waived his statute of limitations defense by failing to raise the issue prior to or during his trial. In addition, as Coté acknowledges, we are constrained by Supreme Court precedent to conclude that his conviction does not violate his constitutional protection against double jeopardy because of the doctrine of dual sovereignty. See United States v. Sewell, 252 F.3d 647, 651 (2d Cir.2001) (holding a defendant in a criminal case may be prosecuted by more than one sovereign without violating any principles of double jeopardy). [6] Finally, we need not devote extensive discussion to Coté's contention that he is entitled to relief because of an alleged violation of the government's Petite policy. This policy precludes the initiation or continuation of a federal prosecution following a prior state or federal prosecution based on substantially the same acts or transactions, absent a finding that the prosecution serves compelling interests of federal law enforcement. Thompson v. United States, 444 U.S. 248, 248, 100 S.Ct. 512, 62 L.Ed.2d 457 (1980) (internal quotation marks omitted). We have squarely held that the Petite policy affords defendants no substantive rights. United States v. Catino, 735 F.2d 718, 725 (2d Cir.1984). Rather, that policy is merely an internal guideline for exercise of prosecutorial discretion, not subject to judicial review. United States v. Ng, 699 F.2d 63, 71 (2d Cir.1983). Accordingly, Coté may not invoke the Petite policy as a bar to his federal prosecution.