Tommie Edward Sanders v. John McGuire United States Marshal

Fifth Circuit

Tommie Edward Sanders v. John McGuire United States Marshal

405 F.2d 881

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 26, 1968

Docket26461

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 405 F.2d 881 (Tommie Edward Sanders v. John McGuire United States Marshal) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tommie Edward Sanders v. John McGuire United States Marshal, 405 F.2d 881 (5th Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The appellant, who is serving a federal sentence for conviction under the Dyer Act in 1966, petitioned for habeas corpus. He contends that he is entitled to credit on this sentence for time which he spent in state custody, serving sentences imposed in 1967 for forgery and escape from jail.

The appellant’s contention is refuted by the express provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3568. This Section states that such credit shall be awarded only for time “spent in custody in connection with the offense or acts for which sentence was imposed.” When he was placed in state custody, the appellant was on probation relative to the federal offense for which he is now imprisoned. Since he was not in state custody “in connection with the [federal] offense,” the appellant is not entitled to credit therefor on his federal sentence. See Dillinger v. Blackwell, D.C.N.D.Ga.1967, 277 F.Supp. 389; United States v. Beeker, D.C.D.Md.1967, 275 F.Supp. 608.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

The appellant, who is serving a federal sentence for conviction under the Dyer Act in 1966, petitioned for habeas corpus. He contends that he is entitled to credit on this sentence for time which he spent in state custody, serving sentences imposed in 1967 for forgery and escape from jail.

The appellant’s contention is refuted by the express provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3568. This Section states that such credit shall be awarded only for time “spent in custody in connection with the offense or acts for which sentence was imposed.” When he was placed in state custody, the appellant was on probation relative to the federal offense for which he is now imprisoned. Since he was not in state custody “in connection with the [federal] offense,” the appellant is not entitled to credit therefor on his federal sentence. See Dillinger v. Blackwell, D.C.N.D.Ga.1967, 277 F.Supp. 389; United States v. Beeker, D.C.D.Md.1967, 275 F.Supp. 608.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

405 F.2d 881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tommie-edward-sanders-v-john-mcguire-united-states-marshal-ca5-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack