United States of America v. Gabriel Mangum

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.

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
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[Unpublished]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 of 3 --

-3-
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 of 3 --