Fontaine v. United States, 30206 Summary Calendar.
| Decision Date | 24 November 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 30206 Summary Calendar.,30206 Summary Calendar. |
| Citation | 434 F.2d 1310 |
| Parties | Emile V. FONTAINE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Emile V. Fontaine, pro se.
John W. Stokes, Jr., U.S. Atty., Allen I. Hirsch, Asst. U.S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.
Before THORNBERRY, MORGAN and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner, Emile V. Fontaine, appeals from the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, filed pursuant to the allwrits statute, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651 (1966). Because we agree with the district court that the defendant was not entitled to credit for time spent in State custody on a Louisiana conviction, we affirm.
Fontaine stole a car in Louisiana on October 10, 1966 and drove the automobile to Houston, Texas, where he was arrested. He was returned to Louisiana, where State authorities indicted, prosecuted and sentenced him to three years for auto theft. Thereafter, while still in State custody, Fontaine was indicted and tried by the United States and was sentenced to serve four years for violating the Dyer Act. At the conclusion of his State sentence, Fontaine was immediately placed in federal custody to begin serving his four-year sentence on the federal conviction.
Fontaine now contends that his federal sentence should be credited with the three years which he served on the Louisiana conviction for theft of the same auto which he transported in interstate commerce, because the separate convictions were based upon the same acts. In support of his contention, he cites Section 3-d of Policy Statement #7600.47 of the Bureau of Prisons. This Policy Statement was designed to implement the Bail Reform Act of 1966, 18 U.S.C.A. § 3568 (1969), relative to computing federal sentences. The pertinent provisions are:
While this court is not bound to accept the Bureau of Prison's Policy Statement as a valid implementation of the Bail Reform Act,1 there is no need for us to rule on whether Policy Statement #7600.47 is consistent with the meaning of § 3568. Fontaine's claim is not within the ambit of either the policy statement or the statute.
It is true that the same automobile was involved in both...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chua Han Mow v. United States
...543 F.2d 751 (10th Cir.1976) (federal and state charges of bank robbery arising from one robbery not the "same"); Fontaine v. United States, 434 F.2d 1310 (5th Cir.1970) (state charge of wrongful appropriation of a car and federal charge of transporting the same car across state lines); Dil......
-
U.S. v. Armedo-Sarmiento
...observed, the convictions involved were for entirely separate crimes, we find § 3568 to be inapplicable. See Fontaine v. United States,434 F.2d 1310, 1311 (5th Cir. 1970). Leon Velez, the only appellant who testified, contends that his sentence of five years imprisonment with a $5,000 commi......
-
Casado v. Morris, Civil No. 98-2654 (JEI) (D. N.J. 9/28/1998)
..."same charges" is a strict one. See Emig v. Bell, 456 F. Supp. 24, 26 (D. Ct. 1978). Petitioner correctly cites Fontaine v. United States, 434 F.2d 1310, 1311 (5th Cir. 1970) for the proposition that credit is given on a federal sentence for time spent in state custody if the state custody ......
-
Emig v. Bell, Civ. No. B-77-233.
...and federal sentence resulted from the "same charges" is a strict one. See, e. g., Policy § 4(c)(1)(b), examples; Fontaine v. United States, 434 F.2d 1310, 1311 (5th Cir. 1970); Gilbert v. United States, 299 F.Supp. 689, 692 (S.D.N.Y.1969); Dillinger v. Blackwell, 277 F.Supp. 389, 390 (N.D.......