UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
v.
DONALD LEE CARLSON, APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A defendant released on bond, even with reporting and travel restrictions, is not considered "in custody" for the purpose of receiving sentence credit under the repealed 18 U.S.C. § 3568.
Donald Lee Carlson was convicted of conspiracy and tax evasion and released on bond with conditions. After conviction, he sought sentence credit for t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
PER CURIAM.
Donald Lee Carlson appeals pro se from the order of the District Court1 for the District of Minnesota denying his motion for a sentence credit under 18 U.S.C. § 3568 (repealed, effective November 1, 1987) for the time he was released on bond.
Carlson was indicted by a federal grand jury and charged with one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and one count of tax evasion in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201. After his arrest, a magistrate set bond at $50,000 and imposed certain reporting conditions and travel restrictions. On March 2, 1987, Carlson posted bond and was released. Following a jury conviction on October 17, 1987, the bond was revoked. The district court sentenced Carlson to two consecutive five-year prison terms and ordered him to pay a total of $100 in special assessment fees and $110,000 in fines.
Carlson filed the instant motion, arguing that because of the reporting conditions and travel restrictions of his bond, he was “in custody” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3568, and thus, was entitled to a sentence credit for the time he was released on bond. In support of his position, Carlson cited several cases holding that for purposes of federal habeas corpus actions, individuals released on bond were “in custody.” The district court denied Carlson's motion, relying on Villaume v. United States Department of Justice, 804 F. 2d 498 (8th Cir.1986) (per curiam), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1022, 107 S.Ct. 1908, 95 L.Ed.2d 514 (1987). In this timely appeal, Carlson reasserts the arguments advanced below.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3568, a federal prisoner will receive credit towards “his sentence for any days spent in custody in connection with the offense or acts for which sentence was imposed.” In Villaume v. United States, this court held that the custody requirement in § 3568 related only to actual custodial incarceration and did not include the time a defendant was free on bond and specifically refused to extend to the meaning of “in custody” in federal habeas corpus proceedings to § 3568. 804 F. 2d at 499.
Accordingly, the district court order is affirmed.
. The Honorable Edward J. Devitt, Senior Judge, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Insley, 927 F.2d 185 (4th Cir. 1991)
-
Moreland v. United States, 968 F.2d 655 (8th Cir. 1992)
-
United States v. Roth, 934 F.2d 248 (10th Cir. 1991)
Authorities Cited
- Teague v. New Mexico, 481 U.S. 1022 (U.S. 1987)
- Villaume v. United States Dep't of Just., 804 F.2d 498 (8th Cir. 1986)
- Richter v. United States, 481 U.S. 1022 (U.S. 1987)