United States v. Brown, No. 16-30143 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseAn inmate serving a federal sentence remains under "the custody of the Attorney General" as per 18 U.S.C. 751(a) when he is held at a state-run institution pursuant to the writ. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a pre-plea motion to dismiss an indictment where defendant pleaded guilty to attempted escape. The panel held that defendant's guilty plea did not preclude them from considering the merits of his appeal; the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss on the ground that he was in federal custody as a matter of law pursuant to section 751(a); and the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss on prosecutorial vindictiveness grounds.
Court Description: Criminal Law The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of a pre- plea motion to dismiss an indictment in a case in which the defendant pleaded guilty to attempted escape in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a). The defendant moved to dismiss on two grounds. His jurisdictional claim asserted that the district court could not charge him under § 751(a) because he was not in federal custody at the time of the attempted escape. His prosecutorial vindictiveness claim argued that the timing of the indictment – filed approximately five months after the attempted escape and only after the defendant’s declaration was introduced in his cell mate’s trial – created a presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness. The panel held that the defendant’s unconditional guilty plea does not preclude this court from considering the merits of his appeal because both of the defendant’s challenges qualify as jurisdictional claims. The panel held that a federal prisoner remains in federal “custody” for purposes of § 751(a), even when housed at a state institution pursuant to writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, and that the district court therefore did not err in refusing to dismiss the indictment for lack of jurisdiction.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.