body: The ["Petite" policy](https://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-2000-authority-us-attorney-criminal-division-mattersprior-approvals#9-2.031) ([Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Jeopardy_Clause#%22Petite%22_policy)) is a set of criteria (based on policy, not the Constitution or statute) the federal Department of Justice (USDOJ) has for prosecuting when there has already been a state trial on the same issue. The general rule is that the federal government will *not* prosecute in such a case, but there are exceptions.
  
  
  Jose Ines Garcia Zarate was convicted by a California state court of being a felon in possession of a firearm, which carries a sentence of 16 months to 3 years. [1](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/30/us/kate-steinle-murder-trial.html)
  
  
  The USDOJ has now charged ([announcement](https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/jose-inez-garcia-zarate-face-federal-firearm-charges-northern-district-california), [indictment](https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1015981/download?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery)) Garcia Zarate with two crimes:
  
  
  1. Felon in Possession of Firearm and Ammunition
  2. Alien in Possession of Firearm and Ammunition
  
  
  *1* seems to be essentially the same charge, and *2* seems pretty close (there's only one criminal transaction).
  
  
  Is this compliant with the "Petite" policy?
  
  
  I'll put an answer, but I'm looking forward to seeing other answers and comments.
  
  
  
title: Is re-charging Jose Ines Garcia Zarate compliant with the "Petite" policy?