U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1967

Earl R. Cephus v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided October 23, 1967 · Miller, Burger, Wright

389 F.2d 317; 128 U.S. App. D.C. 366; 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4799 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. James VanR. Springer, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court), for appellant., Mr. Lee A. Freeman, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David G. Bress, U. S. Atty., Frank Q. Nebeker and Victor W. Caputy, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision. The 14 that cite it most often are listed here.

United States v. Alexander E. Lewis, Jr. (D.C. Cir. 1971)
United States v. Peterson (D.C. Cir. 1974)
United States v. Alex Popeko (5th Cir. 1973)
Fred Davis v. United States (7th Cir. 1971)
Jack Thornton Atkinson v. United States (8th Cir. 1969)
Frye v. Moran (District Court, W.D. Texas 1969)
Wright v. Blackwell (United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia 1969)
Wright v. Blackwell (United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia 1969)
United States v. Vito Debellis (1st Cir. 1981)
Fuller v. Attorney General (District Court, District of Columbia 1980)
State v. La Badie (N.M. Ct. App. 1975)
People v. Cowsar (Cal. Ct. App. 1974)
State v. Lee (N.J. 1972)
State v. Walker (N.C. Ct. App. 1970)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

This ease came on to be heard on the record on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and was argued by counsel.

It appearing that pursuant to this Court’s decision in Cephus v. United States, 122 U.S.App.D.C. 187, 188 n. 1, 352 F.2d 663, 664 n. 1 (1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 1012, 86 S.Ct. 1956, 16 L.Ed.2d 1031 (1966), Appellant has received credit for jail custody “for want of bail,” under then existing 18 U.S.C. § 3568 (1964), see Stapf v. United States, 125 U.S.App.D.C. 100, 367 F.2d 326 (1966);

It further appearing that the commitment, in the circumstances of this case, to St. Elizabeths Hospital (from a non-bail confinement in the District of Columbia Jail) for a mental examination upon Appellant’s motion, should be treated in the same manner, for purposes of credit, as the confinement in the District of Columbia Jail pending trial; Stapf v. United States, supra;

It further appearing that Appellant’s election not to commence service of sentence pending appeal under then-existing Fed.R.Crim.P. 38(a) (2) was voluntary and was made with full knowledge of the consequences, including an express statement on the form that no credit would be given if the election were *318 made, compare Williams v. United States, D.C.Cir. No. 18,399 (1964) (unreported); Bolden v. Clemmer, 235 F.Supp. 832 (E.D.Va. 1964);

It further appearing that the supervening change in Fed.R.Crim.P. 38(a) (2) operates prospectively only from the date of the amendment; it is

Ordered that the judgment appealed from is in all respects, hereby affirmed, except insofar as it denied Appellant credit for the time spent in St. Eliza-beths Hospital and without prejudice to Appellant seeking consideration by the Department of Corrections, giving “heed to the spirit of the remedial amendment to Rule 38 [Fed.R.Crim.P. 38(a) (2)].” McCoy v. United States, 125 U.S.App. D.C. 202, 203, 370 F.2d 224, 225 (1966), of granting credit for time spent pending appeal. See Gibson v. Sard, 129 U.S.App.D.C.-, 391 F.2d 468, aff’d by order, October 17, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.