28 C.F.R. § 527.30
Purpose and scope
The Bureau of Prisons will consider a request made on behalf of a state or local court that an inmate be transferred to the physical custody of state or local agents pursuant to state writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum or ad testificandum. The Warden at the institution in which the inmate is confined is authorized to approve this transfer in accordance with the provisions of this rule.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1983–2024 · leading case: Dixon v. Von Blanckensee, 994 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2021).
Dixon v. Von Blanckensee, 994 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2021). “” 28 C.F.R. § 527.30 . However, those regulations direct that “[t]he Warden shall authorize 8 The same is not true in reverse.”
State v. Castillo-Rodriguez, 986 N.W.2d 78 (Neb. 2023). “” 28 C.F.R. § 527.30 (1997). 15 Williams, supra note 3 , 253 Neb.”
State v. Henretta, 325 S.W.3d 112 (Tenn. 2010). “28 C.F.R. § 527.30 (1997). The Ponzi Court additionally noted that the voluntary transfer of custody by one sovereign to another provides a defendant with no ground for objection: One accused of crime has a right to a full and fair trial according to the law of the government…”
State v. Lavelle W., 2005 WI App 266 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). “28 C.F.R. §§ 527.30 and 527.31 guide the United States Bureau of Prisons in determining when and under what circumstances a federal prisoner will be produced when he or she is needed in state court, and, contrary to what Kraft was apparently told, the regulations do envision…”
State v. Williams, 573 N.W.2d 106 (Neb. 1997). “The factual determination of whether Williams was transferred to Nebraska pursuant to a detainer or a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum depends upon whether the State intended to lodge a detainer, as evidenced by the testimony of the Deputy Douglas County Attorney and the…”
State v. Adler, 942 P.2d 439 (Ariz. 1997). “See 28 C.F.R. §§ 527.30 -.31. "It is generally true that the state may use a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum to return the accused to the county where charges have been filed.”
Rease v. Commonwealth, 316 S.E.2d 148 (Va. 1984). “§ 2241 (c)(5) (1982); 28 C.F.R. §§ 527.30 -.31 (1983), the State of Virginia readily could have brought him back to Fairfax for a probation revocation hearing during his period of federal incarceration.”
State v. Kaipio, 435 P.3d 1040 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). “agents pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum...."). ¶10 Here, the State obtained priority jurisdiction over Defendant when it arrested him for selling drugs.”
Garafola v. Wilkinson, 555 F. Supp. 1002 (M.D. Penn. 1983). “§ 4085 ; 28 C.F.R. § 527.30 (transfer of inmates to state agents for production on state writs).”
United States v. Mandel, 857 F. Supp. 253 (E.D.N.Y 1994). “In addition, the government requests that the court consider less burdensome alternatives to defendant’s personal appearance.”
State v. W. Whitaker, 2024 MT 255 (Mont. 2024). “He argues the prosecutor’s original basis for the motion—that securing Grubb’s testimony would be impractical—was an insufficient ground to justify the request, and the State could readily have sought Grubb’s transport to Missoula pursuant to “a state writ of habeas corpus ad…”
In re Name Change of SIMPKINS, 599 N.W.2d 170 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999). “28 C.F.R. § 527.30 (1998). The procedures that apply to an inmate’s transfer provide, in part, as follows: (b) The Warden shall authorize transfer only when satisfied that the inmate’s appearance is necessary, that state and local arrangements are satisfactory, that the safety…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.