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Submitted: April 11, 2022 Filed: August 9, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________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