The agreement also provides that, when a prisoner seeks an injunction for a case for which an inmate has been filed, he applies for an order on all matters for which the detainees have been submitted by the same “[S]tate”. Article III, point (d). In this context, the various federal districts have been referred to as separate “[S]tates. See UNITED States v. Bryant, 612 F.2d 806 (4. Cir. 1979), cert. The agreement does not authorize prosecutions for other charges for which no detainee has been detained unless they arise from the same transaction. [Article V, point d) ] It is not clear whether the trial of the latter is mandatory.
Applicability of the agreement: the agreement applies only to “a person (who) has imposed a prison sentence in a prison or prison institute” (Articles III bis) and IV, point a)) and is therefore not applicable to a person detained awaiting trial. See UNITED States v. Reed, 620 F.2d 709, 711-12 (9. Cir.), cert. United States v Evans, 423 F. Supp. 528, 531 (S.D.N.Y. 1976), aff`d, 556 F.2d 561 (2d Cir. 1977). Since the agreement applies only to an inmate based on a spent “charge, information or complaint” requiring “procedure” (Article III A) and IV, point a), the agreement does not apply to an inmate on the basis of a parole warrant. See Reed, supra.
The parole procedure is presented in 18 United States.C 4214 (b). The agreement also does not apply to probation agreements. See Carchman v. Nash, 473 U.S. 716 (1985). Article III of the agreement allows a prisoner to definitively arrest an unsolved charge, information or complaint against him in another state on the basis of which a detainee has been laid against him. Article IV allows the Crown of a state in which an unproven indictment, information or complaint is pending, to obtain temporary health detention for a prisoner against whom it has filed a detainee by filing a “written application” for conservatory custody with the incarcerated state. Article V provides for a detailed procedure for obtaining temporary conservatory custody.
An act of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, approved by 28 Us.C 2241 (c) (5), is not a “detainee” within the meaning of the law and does not trigger the application of the agreement. However, when an inmate has been filed, the use of a letter of habeas corpus ad prosequendum to obtain custody of the children constitutes a “written application” within the meaning of the agreement that activates its provisions. See UNITED States v. Mauro, 436 U.S. 340 (1978). The application of the agreement is also not triggered by a letter of habeas corpus ad testificandum, at least if no charges are pending against the prisoner in the jurisdiction of the exhibition. See Carmona v. Warden, 549 F.
Supp. 621 (S.D.N.Y. 1982). You are in the process of accessing WorldCat, NCJRS assumes no responsibility and has no control over the WorldCat website. If the U.S. Attorney`s Office makes the Article IV application, the charge on which the application is based must be eliminated in its entirety (including all court proceedings and convictions, according to some courts) before the prisoner is returned. If this is not the case, the indictment is dismissed as prejudiced, unless there has been notification or the possibility of being heard in accordance with section 9, paragraph 2, of the agreement. [Article IV, point e) ] In this context, the various federal districts were treated as separate states. See UNITED States v.
Woods, 621 F.2d 844 (6. Cir.), cert. Other charges cannot be prosecuted simultaneously unless they arise from the same transaction. [Article V, point d) ] Again, it is not clear whether the examination of the latter is mandatory or only authorized.