Matter of Autumn B. v. Jasmine A.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that where a defendant is brought from state custody into BOP custody to appear in federal court pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, the defendant is still primarily in state custody and the state's priority of jurisdiction is not interrupted
• asserting without analysis that a § 2241 allegation of “over-incarceration” was not moot because a district court “could consider [the excess prison time] under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) as a factor weighing in favor of reducing the term of supervised release”
• a federal government’s writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum was found to serve as a further indication the state had primary jurisdiction over defendant
• “[A] federal court cannot order a sentence to be served concurrently [or consecutively] with a sentence, including a state sentence, that has not yet been imposed.”
• “[A] federal court cannot order a sentence to be served concurrently [or consecutively] with a sentence, including a state sentence, that has not yet been imposed.”
• “[A] federal court cannot order a sentence to be served concurrently [or consecutively] with a sentence, including a state sentence, that has not yet been imposed.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).