Michael Vignera v. Attorney General of the United States
Michael VIGNERA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF the UNITED STATES, Respondent-Appellee
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
Michael Vignera, the appellant, has sought credit on his federal sentence for time spent in a federal detention center under writs of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. The district court denied relief on the ground that during this time Vignera was serving a New *638 York state sentence. We agree with the district court that 18 U.S.C. § 3568 , providing credit for jail time served “in connection with the [federal] offense,” does not require granting of credit where the prisoner has already received full credit for that time on his state sentence which was served prior to the federal sentence. Howard v. United States, 420 F.2d 478 (5th Cir. 1970); Radeliffe v. Clark, 451 F.2d 250 (5th Cir. 1971). Revocation of appellant’s state parole because of his federal arrest and conviction does not render § 3568 applicable. Chaplin v. United States, 451 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1971).
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(holding that we do “not require granting of credit where the prisoner has already received full credit for that time on his state sentence which was served prior to the federal sentence”)
-
(petitioner’s request for credit for time spent in federal custody under a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum was denied because they were serving a state sentence, and that time was credited against their state term)
Cited by 18 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Lewis Thomas v. Patrick Whalen
- United States v. Oscar Dovalina
- Thomas J. Sinito v. T.R. Kindt, Warden
- Lewis L. Boniface v. P.M. Carlson, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Phoenix
- Joseph W. Savage v. J. D. Henderson, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Ga.
- Schmanke v. United States Bureau of Prisons
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.