United States v. David Pardue

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “[b]ecause of defendant’s pending state charges, no undue federal incarceration occurred”
• observing that the Act does not apply to pre-trial detainees
• “The district court correctly left this credit calculation for time served issue to the Bureau of Prisons”
• “Interpretation of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is subject to de novo review.”
• “A district court cannot apply section 3585(b) when sentencing, because computing ‘the credit must occur after the defendant begins his sentence.’ ” (quoting United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 333, 112 S.Ct. 1351, 117 L.Ed.2d 593 (1992))
• “Pardue appeared with counsel before the district court or the magistrate judge three separate times, and Pardue never requested a Rule 32.1 hearing during any of these appearances. Accordingly, Pardue also waived his rights to a Rule 32.1 hearing.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).