18 U.S.C. § 4083

Penitentiary imprisonment; consent

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

Persons convicted of offenses against the United States or by courts-martial punishable by imprisonment for more than one year may be confined in any United States penitentiary.

A sentence for an offense punishable by imprisonment for one year or less shall not be served in a penitentiary without the consent of the defendant.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 52 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1949–2021 · leading case: Augustus E. Harvin v. United States, 445 F.2d 675 (D.C. Cir. 1971).
Augustus E. Harvin v. United States, 445 F.2d 675 (D.C. Cir. 1971). · cites it 5× “957 , when Congress provided for a federal penitentiary, what the decisions made clear is now embodied in statute in the following form: Persons convicted of offenses against the United States * * * punishable by imprisonment for more than one year may be confined in any United…”
Green v. United States, 356 U.S. 165 (1958). · cites it 2× “348 , and since imprisonment in a penitentiary can be imposed only if a crime is subject to imprisonment exceeding one year, 18 U. S. C. § 4083 , petitioners assert that criminal contempts if subject to such punishment are infamous crimes under the Amendment.”
United States v. Bernard Hanyard, 762 F.2d 1226 (5th Cir. 1985). · cites it 3× “PLACE OF CONFINEMENT Appellant contends that his sentence is illegal because it violates 18 U.S.C. § 4083 , which provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] sentence for an offense punishable by imprisonment for one year or less shall not be served in a penitentiary without the…”
Leonard Campbell v. Anderson McGruder Superintendent, Det. Servs., (Two Cases), 580 F.2d 521 (D.C. Cir. 1978). “offenses, would supersede 18 U.S.C. § 4083 , which provides that misdemeanor sentences “shall not be served in a penitentiary without the consent of the defendant.”
James Miller v. Gary L. Henman, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Marion, Illinois, 804 F.2d 421 (7th Cir. 1986). “After a weapon was found in his cell he was transferred to Marion, the only Level 6 prison, the end of the line for those who can not or will not accept the responsibility that comes with the limited freedom allowed in less secure prisons.”
United States v. Terry Ann Deisch, 20 F.3d 139 (5th Cir. 1994). “” Under 18 U.S.C. § 4083 , those convicted of federal offenses "punishable by imprisonment for more than one year may be confined in any United States penitentiary,” while "[a] sentence for an offense punishable by imprisonment for one year or less shall not be served in a…”
United States v. Curtis Smith, 982 F.2d 757 (2d Cir. 1992). · cites it 2× “3182, 3221, 3359, it continues to forbid courts from sentencing those subject to no more than a year imprisonment to serve théir terms in penitentiaries without their consent, 18 U.S.C. § 4083 (1988). The law was the same before 1984.”
United States v. Ronald J. Colt, 126 F.3d 981 (7th Cir. 1997). · cites it 2× “Under 18 U.S.C. § 4083 , “[a] sentence for an offense punishable for one year or less shall not be served in a penitentiary without the consent of the defendant.”
United States v. Gordon W. Kahl, 583 F.2d 1351 (5th Cir. 1978). “18 U.S.C. § 4083 . Since the maximum sentence for failure to file a tax return is one year, 26 U.”
United States v. Donald W. Dawes & Phyllis C. Dawes, 874 F.2d 746 (10th Cir. 1989). “18 U.S.C. § 4083 . Since the maximum sentence for failure to file a tax return is one year, 26 U.”
United States v. Anthony Campisi, Peter S. Campisi, Peter A. Campisi, Carman Charles Campisi. Appeal of Peter A. Campisi, 583 F.2d 692 (3rd Cir. 1978). “And 18 U.S.C. § 4083 provides that “[persons convicted of offenses against the United States .”
United States v. Paul H. \Bud\" Holmes", 822 F.2d 481 (5th Cir. 1987). “Similarly, the Court has rejected reliance on 18 U.S.C. § 4083 , providing that those convicted of offenses punishable by more than a year’s imprisonment may be confined in a penitentiary, as basis for concluding that contempts, since they may be so punished, are therefore…”
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.