Unpublished Disposition, 867 F.2d 614 (9th Cir. 1989)Annotate this Case
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Claudette THOMPSON, Defendant-Appellant.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted* Jan. 26, 1989.Decided Jan. 30, 1989.
Before HUG, SCHROEDER and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Claudette Thompson appeals pro se the district court's denial of her motion to have her prison term reduced by the number of days she was free on bond preceding her commitment to prison. We affirm.
Title 18 U.S.C. § 3568 (1966) provides that the Attorney General "shall give ... credit toward service of [a] sentence for any days spent in custody" in connection with the offense for which sentence was imposed.1 We have held that "time spent on bail or on bond pending appeal" is not time served "in custody." United States v. Robles, 563 F.2d 1308, 1309 (9th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 925 (1978). Other circuits that have addressed the issue have made clear that the "in custody" requirement means detention or imprisonment in a place of confinement and does not refer to the stipulations imposed when a defendant is at large on conditional release. United States v. Figueroa, 828 F.2d 70, 71 (1st Cir. 1987); Villaume v. United States Department of Justice, 804 F.2d 498, 499 (8th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1022 (1987); Ortega v. United States, 510 F.2d 412, 413 (10th Cir. 1975); United States v. Peterson, 507 F.2d 1191, 1192 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (per curiam); Polakoff v. United States, 489 F.2d 727, 730 (5th Cir. 1974).
Thompson relies on cases that construe "in custody" for purposes of habeas corpus attack to include being free on conditional release. E.g., Hensley v. Municipal Court, 411 U.S. 345 (1973). Those cases are inapposite. See Figueroa, 828 F.2d at 71.
Although Thompson requests oral argument, the panel unanimously finds this case suitable for disposition without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3
The United States Government assumes that the applicable statute is 18 U.S.C. § 3585 (1984). That statute, however, became effective only on November 1, 1987. See United States v. Rewald, 835 F.2d 215 (9th Cir. 1987). Here, all relevant events occurred before November 1, 1987 and, accordingly, section 3568 controls. Id. For purposes of this appeal, there are no material differences between the two statutes