Insurance Co. of North America v. Trawler Cormorant, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that BOP was under no obligation to follow a state sentence that was ordered to run concurrently with a pre-existing federal sentence where the federal sentencing judge expressed that concurrent sentences would not be consistent with the goals of the criminal justice system
• explaining that, as to the dual sovereignty principle, issues of federal supremacy are inapplicable, and vis-a-vis a state jurisdiction, the United States Government occupies the role of an equal sovereign, just as another state jurisdiction would
• reviewing a claim that BOP failed to make a state sen- tence properly concurrent to a federal sentence under § 2241 even though prisoner alleged BOP’s actions violated the Constitution
• adopting the reasoning of Judge Norris’s concurrence in Del Guzzi v. United States, 980 F.2d 1269, 1272-73 (9th Cir. 1992), that “concurrent sentences imposed by state judges are nothing more than recommendations to federal officials”
• “[CJoncurrent sentences imposed by state judges are nothing more than recommendations to federal officials.”
• “Based on the plain language of the statute, . . . district courts cannot order a sentence to run . . . consecutively to a non-existent term. . . . ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).