Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. DRUMGOLD, 1:17-cr-040. (2017)

Court: District Court, D. North Dakota Number: infdco20170818932 Visitors: 23
Filed: Aug. 14, 2017
Latest Update: Aug. 14, 2017
Summary: INTERSTATE AGREEMENT ON DETAINERS ORDER CHARLES S. MILLER, Jr. , Magistrate Judge . On August 14, 2017, defendant made his initial appearance and was arraigned in the above-entitled action. AUSA David Hagler appeared on the Government's behalf. AFPD Chris Bellmore appeared on defendant's behalf. His office was appointed to represent defendant in this matter. Prior to his initial appearance, defendant was incarcerated by the State of North Dakota at the North Dakota State Penitentiary ("NDS
More

INTERSTATE AGREEMENT ON DETAINERS ORDER

On August 14, 2017, defendant made his initial appearance and was arraigned in the above-entitled action. AUSA David Hagler appeared on the Government's behalf. AFPD Chris Bellmore appeared on defendant's behalf. His office was appointed to represent defendant in this matter.

Prior to his initial appearance, defendant was incarcerated by the State of North Dakota at the North Dakota State Penitentiary ("NDSP") in Bismarck, 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.

At his initial appearance and arraignment, defendant was advised of his rights under the IADA to continued federal custody until the charges set forth in the Indictment are adjudicated. Defendant waived his anti-shuttling provisions of the IADA that time. Additionally he executed an "Interstate Agreement on Detainers Anti-Shuttling Waiver Stipulation."

Based on defendant's waiver, the court finds that knowingly, voluntarily, and upon advice of counsel waived the anti-shuttling provisions of the IADA and in open court and agreed to return to the custody of the State of North Dakota (the "sending state" under the IADA) at the NDSP pending further proceedings in this case initiated by the United States (the "receiving state" under the IADA).

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