18 U.S.C. § 3244
Jurisdiction of proceedings relating to transferred offenders
Section was formerly classified to section 2256 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.
Amendment by section 314 of Pub. L. 95–598 not to affect the application of chapter 9 (§ 151 et seq.), chapter 96 (§ 1961 et seq.), or section 2516, 3057, or 3284 of this title to any act of any person (1) committed before
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20
cases, 1980–2008 · leading case: Rosado v. Civiletti
Rosado v. Civiletti (1980)
“In support of federal jurisdiction, petitioners relied upon 18 U.S.C. § 3244 , 4 as well as various sections of Title 28, including 28 U.”
Karl L. Cannon v. U.S. Department of Justice, United States Parole Commission (1992)
“16 A Commission proceeding which sets a release date varying the total foreign-court-imposed sentence would be a proceeding, albeit in the form of a release date determination, which “modif[ies a] sentence handed down by [the Mexican] courts,” contrary to Article VI and 18…”
Bishop v. Reno (2000)
“10 Our implementing legislation governing treaty transferees who are completing their foreign sentences in the United States, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3244 and 4100 et seq., 11 is consistent with the Treaty in establishing procedure in the United States *1303 for administering foreign…”
Gerald Glen Boyden v. Griffin Bell, Attorney General, and L. R. Putnam, Warden (1980)
“SNEED, Circuit Judge: Gerald Glen Boyden appeals the district court’s summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3244 . 1 Although appellant raises a number of issues, the primary one is whether U.”
Jesse Lopez Tavarez, Ex Parte v. U. S. Attorney General (1982)
“1212 (codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 3244 , 4100-4115 (Supp. Ill 1979)) (hereinafter the “Foreign Offenders Transfer Act”): If a Mexican national, who has been convicted of a crime under state law in the United States and has been transferred to Mexico to serve his sentence, escapes…”
United States v. Leslie Fleishman, United States of America v. Peter Combs, United States of America v. Stephen Green (1982)
“§ 955 ; 18 U.S.C. §§ 3244 , 4100-4115. 20 . Both nations involved and the prisoner must consent to the change in custody.”
Kass v. Barr (1996)
“§ 955 ; 18 U.S.C. §§ 3244 , 4100-4115). On the same day, Mr.”
George Jerome Pfeifer v. United States Bureau of Prisons (1980)
“§ 955 ; 18 U.S.C. §§ 3244 , 4100-4115). 3 . In his briefs on appeal Pfeifer alleged for the first time that the agent participated in his interrogation.”
Mitchell v. United States (1980)
“8718 (Treaty), jurisdiction is based on 18 U.S.C. § 3244 (formerly 28 U.S.C. § 2256 ).”
Robert Venetucci v. Constance C. Reese (2002)
“§ 4108 hearing to verify his consent to transfer, and in a subsequent written and signed affirmation, Venetucci agreed that any legal proceeding challenging his conviction or sentence had to be brought in Italy — an agreement which is consistent with federal law.”
Venetucci v. Department of State (2006)
“” 18 U.S.C. § 3244 (1). Venetucci claims that the district court should have exercised jurisdiction over his complaint because he sought to challenge the State Department’s January 1985 decision to permit his trial in Italy on the murder charge, and not attack his Italian murder…”
Kanasola v. Civiletti (1980)
“and 18 U.S.C. § 3244 (1) include the transfer of prisoners to serve their Canadian sentences in the United States under the direction of the Attorney General; verification proceedings to verify that the offender willingly and knowingly agreed to the transfer to be conducted in…”
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.