## Facts

- Alberto Hernandez-Fundora, a federal inmate at Ray Brook Federal Correctional Institution in New York, struck fellow inmate Bradley Parris in the face with a table leg, breaking Parris’s jaw.
- In an interview with an FBI agent, Hernandez-Fundora admitted hitting Parris with the table leg and claimed he acted after prior chemical spraying incidents in his cell.
- Prison officials imposed disciplinary segregation on Hernandez-Fundora for the incident.
- The United States prosecuted Hernandez-Fundora for assault within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States under 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(c) and 7(3).
- At trial, the district court instructed that if the jury found the assault occurred at Ray Brook, a federal prison, the jurisdiction element was satisfied.
- The jury convicted Hernandez-Fundora, and the court imposed a sentence that included a four-level enhancement for use of a dangerous weapon under U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2(b)(2)(B), and denied a reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal criminal prosecution following prison disciplinary segregation for the same conduct violates the Double Jeopardy Clause.
2. Whether the government presented sufficient evidence that the assault occurred within the “special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States” under 18 U.S.C. § 7(3), and whether the jury instruction improperly removed that element from the jury (including any requirement under Fed. R. Evid. 201(f)).
3. Whether the district court clearly erred in denying a reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1.
4. Whether applying a four-level dangerous-weapon enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2(b)(2)(B) constituted impermissible double counting on these facts.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the conviction.
- The court held that prison disciplinary segregation did not bar subsequent federal prosecution under the Double Jeopardy Clause.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient to establish the federal jurisdiction element and upheld the instruction tying that element to the jury’s finding that the assault occurred at Ray Brook.
- The court affirmed the denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility.
- The court vacated the sentence in part and remanded for resentencing because the dangerous-weapon enhancement resulted in impermissible double counting on the record presented.

## Legal Principles

- The Double Jeopardy Clause bars multiple criminal prosecutions or punishments for the same offense, but internal prison discipline imposed for institutional order and safety is not “jeopardy” that precludes a later criminal case.
- For assaults prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. §§ 113 and 7(3), the jury must find the factual location of the offense; the court may instruct that an assault occurring at a federal prison satisfies the statutory jurisdictional requirement.
- Acceptance-of-responsibility determinations under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 receive substantial deference on appeal and are reversed only for clear error.
- Sentencing enhancements under the Guidelines are impermissible when they punish the same aspect of the offense twice as applied to the particular facts (double counting).

## Conclusion

The court upheld Hernandez-Fundora’s conviction, rejecting double-jeopardy and jurisdictional challenges and affirming the denial of acceptance of responsibility, but remanded for resentencing because the dangerous-weapon enhancement improperly double counted offense conduct under the Guidelines.


United States v. Hernandez-Fundora, 58 F.3d 802 (2d Cir. 1995)