United States v. Gabriel Mangum, No. 21-2505 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Shepherd, Erickson, and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Escape from custody included an unauthorized departure from a residential reentry center; imposing consecutive sentence for escape and for violating the conditions of supervised release does not violate double jeopardy.
Download PDF
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Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________ Submitted: April 11, 2022 Filed: August 9, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SHEPHERD, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.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-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
