United States v. Hoskow, Crim. A. No. 7-80686.
| Decision Date | 02 October 1978 |
| Docket Number | Crim. A. No. 7-80686. |
| Citation | 460 F. Supp. 929 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Sanford HOSKOW, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
Christopher A. Andreoff, Asst. U. S. Atty., Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff.
Clyde B. Pritchard, Barris, Golob & Pritchard, Detroit, Mich., for defendant.
On February 2, 1978, petitioner Sanford Hoskow was sentenced, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4205(b)(2), to serve a five (5) year term of imprisonment after having pled guilty to one count of an indictment charging him with being a coconspirator in an attempt to possess and distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Petitioner's motions for reduction of sentence and for reconsideration of the motion for reduction of sentence have been denied. Petitioner has also moved for credit against his sentence for the approximately 8½ months prior to sentencing that his liberty was restricted by the terms of his bond. For reasons set forth herein, this motion is denied.
Between the time petitioner pleaded guilty and the time he was sentenced by this court, he was released subject to the conditions of his bond. Those conditions were to post $25,000 in cash or surety, to restrict travel to the Eastern District of Michigan, to report in person to pre-trial services each week, and to make a statement regarding possession of a passport.
Section 3568 of Title 18 of the United States Code provides in part that:
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.
Petitioner cites the case of Hensley v. Municipal Court, 411 U.S. 345, 93 S.Ct. 1571, 36 L.Ed.2d 294 (1973), for the proposition that he was in custody between the time of his plea of guilty and the time of sentencing due to the aforementioned bond conditions. Hensley was released on his own recognizance on the conditions that he appear when required to do so, that if he failed to appear and was apprehended outside of the state he waived extradition, and that any court of competent jurisdiction could revoke the order of release and return him to custody or impose other conditions of release. The Supreme Court held that these conditions constituted custody for purposes of the federal habeas corpus act and characterized the custody requirement as being: "Designed to preserve the writ of habeas corpus as a remedy for severe restraints on individual liberty." Hensley, supra at 351, 93 S.Ct. at 1574. The issue presented in that case by petitioner for resolution was whether being subject to bond conditions constituted "custody" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2254. In this case the court must determine whether days spent subject to bona conditions are days...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Woods
...to the restrictions placed on a person physically confined in a jail or similar institution. Id. at 1036 (quoting United States v. Hoskow, 460 F.Supp. 929, 931 (E.D.Mich.1978)). See also Ramsey v. Brennan, 878 F.2d 995, 996 (7th Cir.1989) (time spent in halfway house as condition of bond no......
-
U.S. v. Longo
...F.2d 606 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1034 (1981); Ortega v. United States, 510 F.2d 412 (10th Cir. 1975); United States v. Hoskow, 460 F.Supp. 929 (E.D. Mich. 1978). 'In custody' under section 3568 requires actual incarceration. There is no right under section 3568 to receive credit ......
-
U.S. v. Lane
...507 F.2d 1191 (D. C. Cir. 1974) (per curiam); Polakoff v. United States, 489 F.2d 727, 730 (5th Cir. 1974); United States v. Hoskow, 460 F. Supp. 929, 931 (E.D. Mich. 1978). In light of the foregoing, the judgment of the district court is 1 Lane also perfunctorily argues that the two counte......
-
Hebel v. Luther, 82 C 6697.
...whether petitioner's parole time is to be equated with time in prison. Jones is not controlling in this context. See U.S. v. Hoskow, 460 F.Supp. 929, 931 (E.D.Mich.1978); Ortega v. U.S., 510 F.2d 412 (10th 2 It is somewhat unclear whether the Parole Commission is absolutely prohibited from ......