Court Opinion

ID: 7799186
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-08-09 16:01:00.490501+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:28:55.167677
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
        For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________

            No. 21-2505
    ___________________________

       United States of America

                Plaintiff - Appellee

                  v.

           Gabriel Mangum

              Defendant - Appellant
    ___________________________

            No. 21-2513
    ___________________________

       United States of America

                Plaintiff - Appellee

                  v.

           Gabriel Mangum

              Defendant - Appellant
    ___________________________

            No. 21-2514
    ___________________________

       United States of America

                Plaintiff - Appellee

                  v.
                                  Gabriel Mangum

                                     Defendant - Appellant
                                   ____________

                      Appeal from United States District Court
                  for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids
                                   ____________

                             Submitted: April 11, 2022
                               Filed: August 9, 2022
                                   [Unpublished]
                                   ____________

Before SHEPHERD, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
                         ____________

PER CURIAM.

      After escaping from a residential reentry center, Gabriel Mangum received
consecutive prison sentences: one for escaping from custody, 18 U.S.C. § 751(a),
and another for violating the conditions of supervised release, 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e)(3). As he concedes, “[b]oth [of his] arguments” on appeal “are squarely
foreclosed by existing precedent.”

       The first is an argument that residing in a reentry center is not “custody.” See
18 U.S.C. § 751(a). As we have already held, however, escape from custody
includes an “unauthorized departure from [a] residential reentry facility.” United
States v. Goad, 788 F.3d 873, 876 (8th Cir. 2015). Although Mangum asks us to
overrule Goad, “one panel may not overrule an earlier decision by another.” United
States v. Anwar, 880 F.3d 958, 971 (8th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted).

      Nor can we say that imposing consecutive sentences violated double jeopardy.
See U.S. Const. amend. V. We have long held that “the same conduct can result in
both a revocation of a defendant’s supervised release and a separate criminal
conviction without raising double jeopardy concerns.” United States v. Wilson, 939

                                         -2-
F.3d 929, 931 (8th Cir. 2019). Nothing in United States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct.
2369 (2019) (plurality opinion), is to the contrary. See Wilson, 939 F.3d at 932–33
(distinguishing Haymond on the ground that the revocation sentence was
mandatory).

      We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court.1
                     ______________________________

      1
        The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Iowa.
                                        -3-