18 U.S.C. § 3164
Persons detained or designated as being of high risk
1979—Pub. L. 96–43, § 7(1), substituted “Persons detained or designated as being of high risk” for “Interim limits” in section catchline.
Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 96–43, § 7(2), struck out provisions limiting the trial priority to be accorded persons specified in cls. (1) and (2) of this subsection to the interim period commencing ninety days following
Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 96–43, § 7(3), struck out provisions making trial priority provisions of this subsection applicable during an interim period only and requiring the trial of any person detained or designated by the government as being of high risk on or before the first day of such interim period to commence no later than ninety days following the first day of the period and inserted provision excluding the periods of delay specified in section 3161(h) of this title in computing the time limitation of this section.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 113
cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1975–2025 · leading case: United States v. James E. Howard, United States of Am. v. Berry L. Palmer, 590 F.2d 564 (4th Cir. 1979).
United States v. James E. Howard, United States of Am. v. Berry L. Palmer, 590 F.2d 564 (4th Cir. 1979). “1977), holding that the defendant and his counsel were partially at fault for the delay and thus the interim provisions of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3164 , were not violated. Alternatively, the court held that Howard’s ten-day period of hospitalization, which would be…”
United States v. Frans J. Theron, Frans J. Theron v. Honorable Earl E. O'connor, United States Dist. Judge for the Dist. of Kansas, 782 F.2d 1510 (10th Cir. 1986). “Thereon also appeals the district court’s refusal to release him from custody pending trial, asserting that his continued detention violates 18 U.S.C. § 3164 and his constitutional due process rights.”
United States v. Lewis, 425 F. Supp. 1166 (D. Conn. 1977). “* The defendant has moved for release from custody pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3164 , and Section 10(a) of the Speedy Trial Plan for the District of Connecticut.”
United States v. Garland D. Thomas, Sr., 49 F.3d 253 (6th Cir. 1995). “18 U.S.C. § 3164 . In 1985, Thomas was convicted in a California state court of voluntary manslaughter.”
United States v. James L. Bigelow, 544 F.2d 904 (6th Cir. 1976). “18 U.S.C. § 3164 (c). Defendant is charged with having sent to the President of the United States, and to others, a letter dated May 22, 1976, which concluded: THERE IS ONLY ONE FEASIBLE WAY TO COUNTER SUCH A STRONG AND PERVASIVE GOVERNMENTAL AND BUSINESS ENSLAVEMENT AND THAT IS…”
United States v. James Henry Simmons, 536 F.2d 827 (9th Cir. 1976). “18 U.S.C. § 3164 (a). 44 . 18 U.S.C. § 3164 .”
United States v. Gary Russell Bullock, 551 F.2d 1377 (5th Cir. 1977). “” 18 U.S.C. § 3164 . As to these, the Act clearly mandates that they shall be brought to trial no later than 90 days “following the beginning of such continuous detention or designation of high risk by the attorney for the Government.”
United States v. Starnes, 157 F. App'x 687 (5th Cir. 2005). “V Starnes also challenges his sentences based on the Speedy Trial Act, arguing that the sentences should be vacated and he should be released as a sanction for the government’s violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3164 (b). The record demonstrates that Starnes was tried 404 days after his…”
United States v. Paul Torres, III, 995 F.3d 695 (9th Cir. 2021). “Third, 18 U.S.C. § 3164 (b) provides that the trial of any defendant incarcerated awaiting trial “shall commence not later than ninety days following the beginning of such continuous detention[.”
United States v. Wayne Scaife (83-5666), Terrence Vessells (83-5717), 749 F.2d 338 (6th Cir. 1985). “In addition, the ninety day time limit of 18 U.S.C. § 3164 (b) applies to Vessells because he remained incarcerated before trial.”
United States v. John Dillard O'Bryant, 775 F.2d 1528 (11th Cir. 1985). “18 U.S.C. § 3164 (b). Initially we note that the proper redress for a violation of section 3164 is the release of a defendant, not the dismissal of an indictment.”
United States v. Richard Angelo Calabrese & Carol Ann Calabrese, United States of Am. v. Terry A. Logan, 825 F.2d 1342 (9th Cir. 1987). “See 18 U.S.C. § 3164 . This argument is meritless; 18 U.”
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.