18 U.S.C. § 3585

Calculation of a term of imprisonment

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)Commencement of Sentence.—A sentence to a term of imprisonment commences on the date the defendant is received in custody awaiting transportation to, or arrives voluntarily to commence service of sentence at, the official detention facility at which the sentence is to be served.(b)Credit for Prior Custody.—A defendant shall be given credit toward the service of a term of imprisonment for any time he has spent in official detention prior to the date the sentence commences—(1) as a result of the offense for which the sentence was imposed; or(2) as a result of any other charge for which the defendant was arrested after the commission of the offense for which the sentence was imposed;that has not been credited against another sentence.(Added Pub. L. 98–473, title II, § 212(a)(2), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2001.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective Nov. 1, 1987, and applicable only to offenses committed after the taking effect of this section, see section 235(a)(1) of Pub. L. 98–473, set out as a note under section 3551 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1,682 cases (501 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: Reno v. Koray, 515 U.S. 50 (1995).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Reno v. Koray, 515 U.S. 50 (1995). · cites it 26× “Title 18 U. S. C. § 3585 (b) provides that a defendant generally must "be given credit toward the service of a term of imprisonment for any time he has spent in official detention prior to the date the sentence commences.”

Lopez v. Terrell, 654 F.3d 176 (2d Cir. 2011). · cites it 48× “of up to 54 days at the end of each year of the prisoner's term of imprisonment," permits the award of GCT for presentence custody served by an inmate that, under 18 U.S.C. § 3585 (b), cannot be credited to the defendant's federal sentence.”

Smith, D. v. PA Bd. of Prob. & Parole, Aplt., 171 A.3d 759 (Pa. 2017). · cites it 12× “The panel below also did not acknowledge appellee had advanced an additional argument, that Baasit also held a “double credit problem” — in which a parolee who receives credit toward his original sentence seeks the same credit against his new sentence — would not arise where the…”

Aubry Johnson v. A. Gill, 883 F.3d 756 (9th Cir. 2018). · cites it 12× “GILL 3 purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3585 (a), and therefore the federal sentence did not commence until June 6, 2011, when the federal government for the first time exercised exclusive penal custody over Johnson.”

United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329 (1992). · cites it 7× “A defendant convicted of a federal crime has a right under 18 U. S. C. § 3585 (b) to receive credit for certain time spent in official detention before his sentence begins.”

Bowman v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 930 A.2d 599 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007). · cites it 24× “18 U.S.C.S. § 3585 . Petitioner then states: The problem with seeking pre-sentence confinement credit against the new sentence is that the United States Supreme Court has held that for the purposes of 3585(b), a defendant is not in `official detention' so as to apply…”

United States v. Raymond Woods, 888 F.2d 653 (10th Cir. 1989). · cites it 11× “First, we must determine whether 18 U.S.C. § 3585 entitles a criminal defendant credit for pre-sentence custody in a conditional release environment.”

Pope v. Perdue, 889 F.3d 410 (7th Cir. 2018). · cites it 4× “607 (1922), and by statute, see 18 U.S.C. § 3585 (a). Examining both, we conclude that Pope's federal sentence commenced on August 31, 2009.”

Carlton Alexander v. Bureau of Prisons, 419 F. App'x 544 (6th Cir. 2011). · cites it 4× “1 In September 2008, Alexander filed this federal habeas corpus petition, asserting that he had been paroled by the State of Pennsylvania on May 2, 2006, and seeking a credit against his federal sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3585 (b), for the time spent in state custody…”

John F. Dawson v. Roger Scott, Warden, 50 F.3d 884 (11th Cir. 1995). · cites it 9× “He sought credit against his sentence for the time that he spent in halfway and safe houses, totaling 488 days.”

United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001). · cites it 2× “50 (1995), we had no occasion to consider what level of deference was owed the Bureau of Prisons' interpretation of 18 U. S. C. § 3585 (b) set forth in an internal agency guideline, because our opinion made clear that we would have independently arrived at the same…”

Al-Marri v. Davis, 714 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2013). · cites it 9× “Prior to sentencing, the BOP had indicated that under 18 U.S.C. § 3585 (b), it would only grant prior custody credit for the time Mr.”

Show all 1,682 citing cases →

— 18 U.S.C. § 3585(a) — 4 cases

Alcantara v. Hollingsworth, 186 F. Supp. 3d 332 (D.N.J. 2016).

Crosby v. Warden Underwood (W.D. Pa. 2025).

Guzman v. Lillard (S.D. Ill. 2025).

Tocee Martineze Mitchell v. Warden, F.C.I. Petersburg (E.D. Va. 2026).

— 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) — 24 cases

United States v. Molina-Gazca, 571 F.3d 470 (5th Cir. 2009).

Banks v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 136 A.3d 1102 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016).

Grigsby, Melvin v. Bledsoe, B. A., 223 F. App'x 486 (7th Cir. 2007).

Ferrante v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 990 F. Supp. 367 (D.N.J. 1998).

United States v. Grape, 509 F. Supp. 2d 484 (W.D. Pa. 2007).

— 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b)(1) — 1 case

Smith, D. v. PA Bd. of Prob. & Parole, Aplt., 171 A.3d 759 (Pa. 2017). “The panel below also did not acknowledge appellee had advanced an additional argument, that Baasit also held a “double credit problem” — in which a parolee who receives credit toward his original sentence seeks the same credit against his new sentence — would not arise where the…”

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.