The opinion of the court was delivered by: Catherine C. Blake United States District Judge
On March 15, 2012, Larry Jones ("Jones") was sentenced to a 37-month term of incarceration as to one count of felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Judgment was entered on March 16, 2012. See United States v. Jones, Criminal No. CCB-11-0390, ECF No. 34.*fn1 No appeal was filed. At the time of sentencing Jones was serving an 18-month term for violating his state probation, which commenced on May 3, 2011. ECF No. 31.
On February 28, 2013, the court received Jones's motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In the motion, dated February 24, 2013, Jones claims that his "anti-shuttling" rights under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers ("IAD") were violated when he was transported from state custody for arraignment to federal court in Baltimore, Maryland and then brought back to state prison prior to federal trial. See ECF No. 37, at 4. He seemingly contends that it was the federal government's obligation to complete trial before returning him to serve his state sentence. Jones further argues that his counsel was ineffective for the failure to raise the violation of the "anti-shuttling act" at sentencing or on appeal. He concludes that this violation of the IAD mandates the dismissal of his federal indictment.
The court entered a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum on December 22, 2011, to secure Jones's appearance at re-arraignment. He was rearraigned and entered a plea before the undersigned on January 17, 2012. On February 16, 2012, a writ ad prosequendum was entered to obtain Jones's appearance at sentencing. Pursuant to that writ, Jones was brought before this court on March 15, 2012. He was sentenced to 37 months with three years supervised release and ordered to pay a special assessment of $100.
Jones contends that the court violated the anti-shuttling provisions of Article IV(e) of the IAD, 18 U.S.C., app. 2 § 2. He argues that the language of the IAD mandates dismissal of his federal indictment because he was "shuttled" between state and federal custody during the pendency of his criminal case. Additionally, Jones alleges that his counsel was ineffective for failing to raise this issue with the court at sentencing and on appeal. Under the facts of this case, the court finds no merit to Jones's claims and shall dismiss the § 2255 motion.
The IAD is a compact among 48 states, the United States, and the District of Columbia. Its purpose is to encourage the expeditious and orderly disposition of [outstanding] charges and determination of the proper status of any and all detainers based on untried indictments, informations, or complaints. The party States also find that proceedings with reference to such charges and detainers, when emanating from another jurisdiction, cannot properly be had in the absence of cooperative procedures. It is the further purposes of this agreement to provide such cooperative procedures.
18 U.S.C. app. 2, § 2, Art. I.
To effectuate these purposes, the IAD provides for two methods of disposing of "untried indictments, informations, or complaints" and their related detainers. The first method, invoked by the prisoner, is a request for final disposition under Article III. The second method, invoked by a party state, is a request for temporary custody or availability under Article IV.
In this case, the United States, as a party to the IAD, brought a request under Article IV(a), which states:
The appropriate officer of the jurisdiction in which an untried indictment, information, or complaint is pending shall be entitled to have a prisoner against whom he has lodged a detainer and who is serving a term of imprisonment in any party State made available in accordance with article V(a) hereof upon presentation of a written request for temporary custody or availability to the appropriate authorities of the State in which the prisoner is incarcerated.
18 U.S.C. app. 2, § 2, Art. IV(a). Jones argues that the government's actions violate Article IV(e) of the IAD, which provides:
If trial is not had on any indictment, information, or complaint contemplated hereby prior to the prisoner's being returned to the original place of imprisonment pursuant to article V(e) hereof, such indictment, information, or complaint shall not be of any further force or ...