18 U.S.C. § 3566
Implementation of a sentence of probation
The implementation of a sentence of probation is governed by the provisions of subchapter A of chapter 229.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1962–2025 · leading case: Butler v. United States
Butler v. United States (1984)
“[38] 18 U.S.C. § 3566 (1982). [1] Although Clark v.”
United States v. Tipton (1996)
“Before enactment of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (the “Sentencing Guidelines”), 18 U.S.C. § 3566 had provided that with respect to death sentences imposed under the few then extant federal capital offenses the means of execution should be that “prescribed by the laws of the…”
Johnson v. United States (2012)
“Moreover, the last federal capital case in Iowa was the conviction of Victor Harry Feguer, who was tried in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa on March 1 to 12, 1961, for violating the Kidnapping Act, 18 U.”
Victor Harry Feguer v. United States (1962)
“Accordingly, and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3566 and to § 792.9 of the Code of Iowa, 1958, I.”
United States v. Pitera (1992)
“See 18 U.S.C. § 3566 (repealed 1984). 18 U.S.”
United States v. Honken (2005)
“Victor Harry Feguer was tried in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa on March 1 to 12, 1961, for violation of the Kidnapping Act, 18 U.”
United States v. Honken (2004)
“§ 1201 (a), convicted, and upon a jury’s recommendation, sentenced to death by hanging pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3566 and Iowa Code § 792.9 (1958).”
United States v. Chandler (1996)
“18 U.S.C. § 3566 had formerly specified the procedures used for executing federal prisoners.”
United States v. Peter Noone (1991)
“18 U.S.C. § 3566 (repealed 1986) replaced a provision which had referred to the law *337 of the state explicitly, “so as to make it clear that this section applies to a district, possession or territory, as well as to a state.”
Henry Winston v. United States (1962)
“See 18 U.S.C. § 3566 (1958) (death sentence to be carried out in accordance with the law of the place where the sentence is imposed); 18 U.”
United States v. Moon Seals (2025)
“C, 9840a}3)", @ Note: Conforming changes also to be nminde in 18 U.S.C. § 3566 (a) and ¢b), taking into account pending erime bin provisions.”
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.