United States v. Anthony Allen

432 F.2d 939, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6780
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
DecidedOctober 27, 1970
Docket244-70_1
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 432 F.2d 939 (United States v. Anthony Allen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Anthony Allen, 432 F.2d 939, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6780 (10th Cir. 1970).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a), escape from federal custody. He appeals, asserting as the sole appellate issue a claim that his federal custody was triggered by an unlawful arrest originating with state officers. Section 751(a) provides in pertinent part:

Whoever escapes or attempts to escape from the custody of the Attorney General or his authorized representative, or from any institution or facility in which he is confined by direction of the Attorney General, or from any custody under or by virtue of any process issued under the laws of the United States by any court, judge, or magistrate, or from the custody of an officer or employee of the United States pursuant to lawful arrest, shall, if the custody or confinement is by virtue of an arrest on a charge of felony, or conviction of any offense, be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both: * ® ”• (Emphasis added).

It is undisputed that at the time of his escape appellant had been charged with a Dyer Act violation and was incarcerated in a federally approved prisoner detention center after arraignment before and pursuant to an order of a United States Commissioner. Under these circumstances a lawful arrest is not a prerequisite to the crime of escape mandated by section 751(a), since the section is to be read in the disjunctive, not conjunctive, and neither the regularity of his arrest nor the propriety of his confinement can be tested by an act of escape. Derengowski v. United States, 8 Cir., 404 F.2d 778. See also Laws v. United States, 10 Cir., 386 F.2d 816.

Affirmed.

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

Related

United States v. Wynn
145 F.3d 1347 (Tenth Circuit, 1998)
United States v. Chapman
76 F.3d 393 (Tenth Circuit, 1996)
United States v. Michael Roy
830 F.2d 628 (Seventh Circuit, 1987)
United States v. Jackie Lee Green
797 F.2d 855 (Tenth Circuit, 1986)
United States v. Etienne George
625 F.2d 1081 (Third Circuit, 1980)
Lynch
400 N.E.2d 854 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1980)
United States v. Valdemar Da Silva Pereira
574 F.2d 103 (Second Circuit, 1978)
United States v. Alvin Odell Cluck
542 F.2d 728 (Eighth Circuit, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
432 F.2d 939, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6780, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-anthony-allen-ca10-1970.