U.S. Code » Title 18 » Part PART II— CRIMINAL PROCEDURE › Chapter CHAPTER 229— POSTSENTENCE ADMINISTRATION › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER C— IMPRISONMENT

18 U.S.C. § 3623

Transfer of a prisoner to State authority

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
The Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall order that a prisoner who has been charged in an indictment or information with, or convicted of, a State felony, be transferred to an official detention facility within such State prior to his release from a Federal prison facility if—(1) the transfer has been requested by the Governor or other executive authority of the State;(2) the State has presented to the Director a certified copy of the indictment, information, or judgment of conviction; and(3) the Director finds that the transfer would be in the public interest.If more than one request is presented with respect to a prisoner, the Director shall determine which request should receive preference. The expenses of such transfer shall be borne by the State requesting the transfer.(Added Pub. L. 98–473, title II, § 212(a)(2), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2008.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

For a prior section 3623, applicable to offenses committed prior to Nov. 1, 1987, see note set out preceding section 3601 of this title.

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 50 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1972–2025 · leading case: United States v. Hughes Aircraft Co., Inc.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Hughes Aircraft Co., Inc. (1994) ca9 · cites it 4× “Former 18 U.S.C. § 3623 (c)(1). 7 This section does not require specific findings of the exact loss.”
United States v. J. Clenton Henson (87-5132) Sheila Henson Lutz (87-5138) & C. Alan Henson (87-5144) (1988) ca6 · cites it 2× “3137, codified at 18 U.S.C.A. § 3623 . II Clenton Henson and Sheila Lutz challenge their convictions on count one of the indictment, which charged a conspiracy to commit mail fraud.”
United States v. Paul H. \Bud\" Holmes" (1987) ca5 · cites it 4× “However, we determine that appellant was charged with, pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of only a single offense of contempt, and that hence under section 401 he could not be sentenced to both a fine and imprisonment, although he could have been sentenced to either.”
State v. LaPointe (2019) kan “" 18 U.S.C. § 3623 (2012). The State did not show whether it had made a formal request for transfer when LaPointe moved for testing or whether such a request was granted.”
United States v. Bruce C. Wright (1991) ca10 · cites it 4× “The fine was imposed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3623 , which provides for alternative fines.”
United States v. Hooshang Hooshmand (1991) ca11 · cites it 2× “Fines Under 18 U.S.C. § 3623 As part of the sentence, the district court ordered restitution of $3,101.”
United States v. Jean Marie St. Gelais (1992) ca5 · cites it 2× “Gelais on the basis of a scheme substantially similar to the scheme contained in the indictment; (3) that the district court erred by not instructing the *93 jury that only Mutual could have been an intended victim of the scheme and that, as a result of the failure to give that…”
United States v. Pineda-Doval (2010) ca9 “” 18 U.S.C. § 3623 (a)(4) (Supp. II 1985) (current version at 18 U.”
United States v. Rafael Ramirez-Amaya (1987) ca2 · cites it 2× “He relies on 18 U.S.C. § 3623 (c)(2), which provides, in pertinent part that the aggregate of fines that a court may impose on a defendant at the same time for different offenses that arise from a common scheme or plan, and that do not cause separable or distinguishable kinds of…”
United States v. Lov-It Creamery, Inc. (1989) wied · cites it 5× “Second, he found that the limiting language of section 714m prevented the United States from seeking an alternative fine under 18 U.S.C. § 3623 . Finally, he found that an alternative fine under section 3623 or probation, including restitution, under 18 U.”
Daryl E. Ratliff v. United States (1993) ca6 “We find no error, because the sentencing court imposed the greater fine under the Criminal Fine Enforcement Act (CFEA), 18 U.S.C. § 3623 , which permits fines of up to $250,000 per offense and applies to offenses committed between January 1, 1985 and November 1, 1987.”
United States v. Douglas K. Condon (1987) ca8 · cites it 3× “18 U.S.C. § 3623 (a)(5), repealed effective Nov.”
Show all 50 citing cases →
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.