Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Siegel

September 8, 2006

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
RICHARD SIEGEL



The opinion of the court was delivered by: S. Arthur Spiegel United States Senior District Judge

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Defendant Richard Siegel's Motion for Clarification of Service (doc. 63) and the United States' Response (doc. 64).

Defendant filed this pro se Motion on June 7, 2006, and the United States responded on June 19, 2006. Defendant did not file a Reply brief. Defendant requests the Court offer clarification regarding the time he served in the custody of the United States Marshal Service ("USMS") at the Grant County Detention Center from February 3, 2005, to June 12, 2006 (doc. 63).

The United States responds that Defendant's request is outside the "scope of the criminal matter and supervised release violation previously addressed by this Court" (doc. 64). Additionally, the Government advises that this information should be requested from the USMS (Id.). The Government argues that since the request for information is beyond the scope of the criminal trial, this Court is not the proper venue for the request (Id.).

In U.S. v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 335 (1992), the Supreme Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) delegated to the Attorney General, acting through the Bureau of Prisons, the responsibility to determine the credit a defendant should receive for time served prior to sentencing. The Bureau of Prisons, not this Court, has jurisdiction to determine the credit Defendant should receive for time served in the custody of the USMS for the period of time in question.

The Court has reviewed Defendant's Motion and the responses of the United States thereto. The Court finds the arguments of the United States persuasive. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion for Clarification of Service (doc. 63).

SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 7, 2006

20060908

© 1992-2006 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.