FEDERAL · 10 U.S.C. · Chapter SUBCHAPTER VIII—SENTENCES
Art. 58. Execution of confinement
10 U.S.C. § 858
Title10 — Armed Forces
ChapterSUBCHAPTER VIII—SENTENCES
This text of 10 U.S.C. § 858 (Art. 58. Execution of confinement) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
10 U.S.C. § 858.
Text
(a)Under such instructions as the Secretary concerned may prescribe, a sentence of confinement adjudged by a court-martial or other military tribunal, whether or not the sentence includes discharge or dismissal, and whether or not the discharge or dismissal has been executed, may be carried into execution by confinement in any place of confinement under the control of any of the armed forces or in any penal or correctional institution under the control of the United States, or which the United States may be allowed to use. Persons so confined in a penal or correctional institution not under the control of one of the armed forces are subject to the same discipline and treatment as persons confined or committed by the courts of the United States or of the State, District of Columbia, or pla
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Schick v. Reed
419 U.S. 256 (Supreme Court, 1974)
William L. Calley, Jr. v. Howard H. Callaway, Secretary of the Army
496 F.2d 701 (Fifth Circuit, 1974)
United States v. Gay
75 M.J. 264 (Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 2016)
Apodaca v. People
712 P.2d 467 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1986)
Ronald G. Sills v. Bureau of Prisons
761 F.2d 792 (D.C. Circuit, 1985)
United States v. Joshua
607 F.3d 379 (Fourth Circuit, 2010)
Walker v. Luther
830 F.2d 1208 (Second Circuit, 1987)
United States v. Davidson
14 M.J. 81 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1982)
Anthony T. Koyce v. United States Board of Parole
306 F.2d 759 (D.C. Circuit, 1962)
United States v. Donald G. Richardson
687 F.2d 952 (Seventh Circuit, 1982)
United States v. Best
61 M.J. 376 (Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 2005)
United States v. Carson
57 M.J. 410 (Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 2002)
United States v. Ragan
14 C.M.A. 119 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1963)
Maurice Schick v. George J. Reed, Chairman of the United States Board of Parole
483 F.2d 1266 (D.C. Circuit, 1973)
United States v. Hilt
18 M.J. 604 (U S Air Force Court of Military Review, 1984)
James F. O'Callahan v. The Attorney General of the United States
338 F.2d 989 (First Circuit, 1964)
United States v. Dunn
9 C.M.A. 388 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1958)
Blackwell v. Edwards
303 F.2d 103 (Ninth Circuit, 1962)
United States v. Ouimette
52 M.J. 691 (U S Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals, 2000)
United States v. Koleff
16 C.M.A. 268 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1966)
Source Credit
History
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 57; Pub. L. 109–163, div. A, title X, §1057(a)(3), Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3440.)
Editorial Notes
In subsection (a), the words "Secretary concerned" are substituted for the words "Department concerned", since the "Department" as an entity, cannot issue instructions. The word "are" is substituted for the words "shall be". The words "of Columbia" are inserted after "District" for clarity.
In subsection (b), the word "from" is substituted for the word "in". The words "does not deprive" are substituted for the words "shall not be construed as depriving".
Editorial Notes
Amendments
2006—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 109–163 struck out "Territory," after "State,".
In subsection (b), the word "from" is substituted for the word "in". The words "does not deprive" are substituted for the words "shall not be construed as depriving".
Editorial Notes
Amendments
2006—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 109–163 struck out "Territory," after "State,".
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
10 U.S.C. § 858, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/usc/10/858.