The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
073174np-pdf•Andrew M. King v. CAMERON LINDSAY, Warden, U.S.P. Canaan On Appeal from the United States District…
073174np-pdfCourt of Appeals for the Third CircuitNov 9, 2007
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 07-3174
___________
ANDREW M. KING,
Appellant
v.
CAMERON LINDSAY,
Warden, U.S.P. Canaan
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 07-cv-00375)
District Judge: Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
November 7, 2007
Before: SLOVITER, BARRY and WEIS, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed November 9, 2007)
___________
OPINION
___________
PER CURIAM
Andrew King appeals the District Court’s order denying his petition filed pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the following reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s
judgment.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
The procedural history of this case and the details of King’s claims are well known
to the parties, set forth in the District Court’s thorough opinion, and need not be discussed
at length. In his § 2241 petition, King argued that he was entitled to credit on his federal
sentence for time served before trial. The District Court denied the petition, and King
filed a timely notice of appeal.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and exercise plenary review over the
District Court’s legal conclusions. Cradle v. U.S. ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536, 538 (3d
Cir. 2002). While King makes several arguments regarding the timing and the reasons for
the pretrial detention at issue, he does not dispute that the time was credited towards his
state sentence for a parole violation. As explained by the District Court, under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3585(b), a defendant can only receive credit towards a federal sentence for prior
custody “that has not been credited against another sentence.”
For the above reasons, as well as those set forth by the District Court, we will
affirm the District Court’s order. King’s motion to expedite the appeal is denied as moot.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.