Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. Ruiz, 1:16-cr-052. (2016)

Court: District Court, D. North Dakota Number: infdco20160527c29 Visitors: 19
Filed: May 26, 2016
Latest Update: May 26, 2016
Summary: INTERSTATE AGREEMENT ON DETAINERS ORDER CHARLES S. MILLER, Jr. , Magistrate Judge . On May 26, 2016, defendant made his initial appearance and was arraigned in the above-entitled action. AUSA Brandi Sasse Russell appeared on the Government's behalf. Attorney Charles Sheeley appeared on defendant's behalf. An interpreter was also present. Prior to his initial appearance, defendant was incarcerated by the State of North Dakota at the James River Correctional Center (JRCC) in Jamestown, North
More

INTERSTATE AGREEMENT ON DETAINERS ORDER

On May 26, 2016, defendant made his initial appearance and was arraigned in the above-entitled action. AUSA Brandi Sasse Russell appeared on the Government's behalf. Attorney Charles Sheeley appeared on defendant's behalf. An interpreter was also present.

Prior to his initial appearance, defendant was incarcerated by the State of North Dakota at the James River Correctional Center (JRCC) in Jamestown, North Dakota. After the Indictment in this case was returned and an arrest warrant issued, a detainer was filed by the United States with the North Dakota prison officials. Pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act ("IADA"), defendant's appearance before this court for his initial appearance and arraignment was secured by a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum.

During the hearing, defendant was advised of his rights under the IADA to continued federal custody until the charges set forth in the superseding indictment are adjudicated. Defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and upon advice of counsel waived the anti-shuttling provisions of the IADA and in open court and agreed to his continued housing by the State of North Dakota (the "sending state" under the IADA) at theJRCC pending further proceedings in this case initiated by the United States (the "receiving state" under the IADA). The United States did not object.

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that defendant be housed in the "sending state" under the IADA pending further proceedings or until further order of the court. Further, pursuant to defendant's waiver, the return of the defendant to his place of incarceration pending trial shall not be grounds under the IADA for dismissal of the charges set forth in the indictment.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer