The agreement also provides that, when a prisoner seeks an injunction for a case for which an inmate has been filed, he applies for an order on all matters for which the detainees have been submitted by the same «[S]tate». Article III, point (d). In this context, the various federal districts have been referred to as separate «[S]tates. See UNITED States v. Bryant, 612 F.2d 806 (4. Cir. 1979), cert. The agreement does not authorize prosecutions for other charges for which no detainee has been detained unless they arise from the same transaction. [Article V, point d) ] It is not clear whether the trial of the latter is mandatory. Applicability of the agreement: the agreement applies only to «a person (who) has imposed a prison sentence in a prison or prison institute» (Articles III bis) and IV, point a)) and is therefore not applicable to a person detained awaiting trial.
See UNITED States v. Reed, 620 F.2d 709, 711-12 (9. Cir.), cert. United States v Evans, 423 F. Supp. 528, 531 (S.D.N.Y. 1976), aff`d, 556 F.2d 561 (2d Cir. 1977). Since the agreement applies only to an inmate based on a spent «charge, information or complaint» requiring «procedure» (Article III A) and IV, point a), the agreement does not apply to an inmate on the basis of a parole warrant.
See Reed, supra. The parole procedure is presented in 18 United States.C 4214 (b). The agreement also does not apply to probation agreements. See Carchman v. Nash, 473 U.S. 716 (1985). transfer of prisoners: the anti-shuttling provisions: Article III, point (d), and Article IV, point e), contain similar provisions; if the trial is not dealt with an indictment, the information or complaints that are contemplated prior to the prisoner`s return to the place of original detention, that charge, information or complaint should not give rise to additional force or effect, and the court makes a decision rejecting it with prejudice, unless the United States is the receiving jurisdiction and a notice and opportunity for hearing has been given in accordance with Section 9 of the agreement. [Article IV, point e) ] It was found that the «trial» included a conviction in this context. See Walker v. King, 448 F. Supp. 580 (S.D.N.Y.
1978). The department did not accept this decision as a correct interpretation of the law. However, in order to avoid litigation and the risk of reversal of proceedings, the return of prisoners should be postponed to the period following the imposition of the sentence or a section 9 hearing. However, if the dismissal of an indictment is requested on the basis of the return of a prisoner before the conviction, it should be opposed. Article III of the agreement allows a prisoner to definitively arrest an unsolved charge, information or complaint against him in another state on the basis of which a detainee has been laid against him. Article IV allows the Crown of a state in which an unproven indictment, information or complaint is pending, to obtain temporary health detention for a prisoner against whom it has filed a detainee by filing a «written application» for conservatory custody with the incarcerated state. Article V provides for a detailed procedure for obtaining temporary conservatory custody.