Ronald Romandine v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that federal court may not order its sentence to run concurrently with a non-existent sentence of some other court
• noting that issues related to BOP’s sentencing calculations are properly brought in a § 2241 petition
• observing that Attorney General may designate state prison as the place of federal confinement so that federal sentence begins there, even if district judge did not impose a concurrent sentence
• observing that Attorney General may designate state prison as the place of federal confinement so that federal sentence begins there, even if district judge did not impose a concurrent sentence
• noting that unauthorized revisions to sentence will stand if not appealed by government
• explaining that Attorney General, through the BOP, has discretion to decide whether a later-imposed sentence should run concurrently or consecutively to federal term, and that discretion must be exercised “without supposing that the district judge’s views ... forbid concurrent sentence”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).