Brown v. United States, 73-1785.

Decision Date15 January 1974
Docket NumberNo. 73-1785.,73-1785.
Citation489 F.2d 1036
PartiesRoman Columbus BROWN, Appellant. v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Roman Columbus Brown, pro se.

Donald J. Stohr, U. S. Atty., and Richard E. Coughlin, Asst. U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., filed brief for appellee.

Before BRIGHT and STEPHENSON, Circuit Judges, and STUART, District Judge.*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Brown appeals from a decision by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri denying his petition for a correction of his federal sentence.

On May 5, 1972, appellant was arrested by the St. Louis, Missouri, police on a charge of armed robbery. On May 8, 1972, a federal detainer was lodged against appellant for parole violation. On June 15, 1972, the state charge was dismissed and appellant was subsequently returned to federal custody. During the period from May 5 to June 15, appellant was in continuous state custody, unable to secure his release on bail. Appellant seeks to have the time spent in state custody credited against his federal sentence on the theory that the federal detainer was the cause of his inability to make bail.

Title 18, United States Code, § 3568, provides in part:

The sentence of imprisonment of any person convicted of an offense shall commence to run from the date on which such person is received at the penitentiary, reformatory, or jail for service of such sentence. The Attorney General shall give any such person credit toward service of his sentence for any days spent in custody in connection with the offense or acts for which sentence was imposed. (Emphasis added.)

Focusing on the "in connection with" language of this section, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in Davis v. Attorney General (5th Cir., 1970), 425 F.2d 238, 240, held that a prisoner denied release on bail by state authorities because of an outstanding federal detainer lodged against him is in custody in connection with a federal offense and entitled to credit against his federal sentence for the time spent in state custody. This court has recognized the authority of Davis. See Shields v. Dagget (8th Cir., 1972), 460 F.2d 1060, 1061.1

The court is of the opinion that appellant's case is within the rule set forth in Davis. Appellant is entitled to relief.

Accordingly, the decision below is reversed, and the case is remanded for entry of an order granting appellant the credit to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Schmanke v. US Bureau of Prisons
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • March 8, 1994
    ...and credit against any Federal sentence, for the same period of time. See, McIntyre v. United States, supra at 404; Brown v. United States, supra at 1037 n. 1; Derengowski v. United States, supra at 812-13. Such a result could not occur here, as the Petitioner's State sentence was subsequen......
  • Harkins v. Lauf
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 9, 1976
    ...immediately been taken to the Missouri department of corrections on the state sentence pursuant to the detainer. In Brown v. United States, 489 F.2d 1036 (8th Cir. 1974), appellant Brown had been arrested on May 5, 1972, by state authorities on a charge of armed robbery. On May 8, 1972, a f......
  • Nutt v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • July 11, 1983
    ...whether the incarceration or confinement resulted from the charge for which the defendant is now being sentenced. E.g., Brown v. U.S., (1974 8th Cir.) 489 F.2d 1036; Boyd v. U.S., (1971 5th Cir.) 448 F.2d 477, cert. denied, 405 U.S. 992, 92 S.Ct. 1264, 31 L.Ed.2d 460 (1972); People v. Manif......
  • Anglin v. Johnston
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • March 3, 1975
    ...for time spent in state custody under those circumstances. Davis v. Attorney General, 425 F.2d 238 (5th Cir. 1970); Brown v. United States, 489 F.2d 1036 (8th Cir. 1974). In view of the totality of authority, we conclude that despite the silence of 28 U.S.C. 1826(a) upon the subject, a pris......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT