U.S. Code » Title 10 » Subtitle Subtitle A— General Military Law › Part PART II— PERSONNEL › Chapter CHAPTER 47— UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER VIII— SENTENCES

10 U.S.C. § 858

Art. 58. Execution of confinement

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 10 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Under such instructions as the Secretary concerned may prescribe, a sentence of confinement adjudged by a court-martial or other military tribunal, whether or not the sentence includes discharge or dismissal, and whether or not the discharge or dismissal has been executed, may be carried into execution by confinement in any place of confinement under the control of any of the armed forces or in any penal or correctional institution under the control of the United States, or which the United States may be allowed to use. Persons so confined in a penal or correctional institution not under the control of one of the armed forces are subject to the same discipline and treatment as persons confined or committed by the courts of the United States or of the State, District of Columbia, or place in which the institution is situated.(b) The omission of the words “hard labor” from any sentence of a court-martial adjudging confinement does not deprive the authority executing that sentence of the power to require hard labor as a part of the punishment.(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 57; Pub. L. 109–163, div. A, title X, § 1057(a)(3), Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3440.)

Historical and Revision Notes

Revised section

Source (U.S. Code)

Source (Statutes at Large)

858(a)

858(b)

50:639(a).

50:639(b).

May 5, 1950, ch. 169, § 1 (Art. 58), 64 Stat. 126.

In subsection (a), the words “Secretary concerned” are substituted for the words “Department concerned”, since the “Department” as an entity, cannot issue instructions. The word “are” is substituted for the words “shall be”. The words “of Columbia” are inserted after “District” for clarity.

In subsection (b), the word “from” is substituted for the word “in”. The words “does not deprive” are substituted for the words “shall not be construed as depriving”.

Editorial NotesAmendments

2006—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 109–163 struck out “Territory,” after “State,”.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 89 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1958–2026 · leading case: United States v. McPherson, 73 M.J. 393 (C.A.A.F. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. McPherson, 73 M.J. 393 (C.A.A.F. 2014). · cites it 4× “may be carried into execution by confinement in any place of confinement under the control of any of the armed forces or in any penal or correctional institution under the control of the United States, or which the United States may be allowed to use.”
King v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 406 F. Supp. 36 (E.D. Ill. 1976). · cites it 6× “United States Penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kansas, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 858 (a) which specifically authorizes the incarceration of military prisoners in federal penitentiaries.”
United States v. Wilson, 73 M.J. 529 (A.F.C.C.A. 2014). · cites it 3× “Relationship between Article 12, UCMJ, and Article 58(a), UCMJ Although the Government initially argued that Article 12, UCMJ, proscribes only confinement in immediate association with “enemy” foreign nationals, during oral argument the Government also contended that Article…”
Apodaca v. People, 712 P.2d 467 (Colo. 1986). · cites it 2× “10 U.S.C. § 858 (1983). In view of these distinctive characteristics of military offenses, we believe the question of whether a military conviction qualifies as a felony conviction under Colorado's impeachment statute should be resolved on the basis of the following two-part…”
United States v. Carson, 57 M.J. 410 (C.A.A.F. 2002). · cites it 2× “In his post-trial action, the convening authority "waive[d] automatic forfeitures in accordance with Article 58b(b), UCMJ, [ 10 USC § 858 (b),] and direct[ed] payment of these forfeitures to the accused's wife .”
Schick v. Reed, 419 U.S. 256 (1974). · cites it 2× “Under the federal parole eligibility statute, 18 U. S. C. §§ 4202-4203 (1970 ed.”
United States v. Goode, 54 M.J. 836 (N.M.C.C.A. 2001). “However, because all of the offenses occurred prior to 1 April 1996, we agree with the appellant that any forfeiture of pay taken under Article 58(b), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 858 (b), would violate the rule against the application of ex post facto laws, as held in United States v.”
Ronald G. Sills v. Bureau of Prisons, 761 F.2d 792 (D.C. Cir. 1985). · cites it 2× “Sills was convicted by courts-martial and thereafter transferred into the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons pursuant to Article 58(a) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 858 (a) (1982). On November 23, 1984, appellant, through counsel, filed a complaint…”
United States v. Joshua, 607 F.3d 379 (4th Cir. 2010). “” 10 U.S.C. § 858 (a) (emphasis added). That Congress chose the words “confinement in” rather than “committed to the custody of’ indicates that Joshua’s transfer to the BOP under the Memorandum did not remove the Army’s legal custody over him.”
United States v. Gay, 75 M.J. 264 (C.A.A.F. 2016). “Alternatively, the CCA could have also found legal error warranting the application of its sentence appropriateness authority through Article 58(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 858 (a) (2012), which establishes that "[plersons .”
United States v. Best, 56 M.J. 251 (C.A.A.F. 2005). “Because the military does not have adequate facilities to provide long-term, inpatient psychiatric treatment for its prisoners, those prisoners requiring such treatment are typically transferred to the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons under the provisions of Article…”
Holt v. Terris, 269 F. Supp. 3d 788 (E.D. Mich. 2017). · cites it 2× “Under 10 U.S.C. § 858 (a), military prisoners may be confined “in any penal or correctional institution under the control of the United States, or which the United States may be allowed to use,” When confined to a nonmilitary institution, these prisoners “are subject to the-same…”
Show all 89 citing cases →
10 U.S.C. § 858(a): 1 case
O'Callahan v. Attorney Gen., 230 F. Supp. 766 (D. Mass. 1964).
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.