18 U.S.C. § 3240
Creation of new district or division
Whenever any new district or division is established, or any county or territory is transferred from one district or division to another district or division, prosecutions for offenses committed within such district, division, county, or territory prior to such transfer, shall be commenced and proceeded with the same as if such new district or division had not been created, or such county or territory had not been transferred, unless the court, upon the application of the defendant, shall order the case to be removed to the new district or division for trial.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1964–1992 · leading case: United States v. Gruberg
United States v. Gruberg (1979)
“Defendant Ronder has now moved to transfer this case to the Northern District of New York under 18 U.S.C. § 3240 or Rule 21(b), F.R.Crim.”
United States v. William Jay Louwsma (1992)
“Jurisdiction Issue Louwsma bases his jurisdictional argument on 18 U.S.C. § 3240 , which provides that when a county is transferred from one district to another, prosecutions for offenses within a district prior to transfer shall take place as if such county had not been…”
Joseph Zicarelli v. Christopher Dietz, Chairman, New Jersey Parole Board and Sally G. Carroll, Associate Member, New Jer (1981)
“1103 , currently in 18 U.S.C. § 3240 (1976), providing that whenever any new district or division is established, or any county or territory is transferred from one district or division to another district or division, prosecutions for offenses committed within such district,…”
United States v. Joe Lewis and Tommy Allen Combs (1974)
“(B) Appellants next contend that the District Court’s transfer of this case to Pikeville violated the following provision of 18 U.S.C. § 3240 : “Whenever any new district or division is established, or any county or territory is transferred from one district or division to…”
Carl Calvin Westover v. United States (1968)
“18 U.S.C. § 3240 provides for the continuance of the old districts for the purpose of crimes committed before the effective date of a redistricting act.”
United States v. Rosenberg (1964)
“This alternative motion is predicated on 18 U.S.C. § 3240 . The defendants contend that the conspiracy count is within the meaning of section 3237(b) of Title 18 United States Code; and that it should be transferred along with the substantive counts, to the judicial district…”
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.