1810

Legal Custody by Attorney General

The courts have held that escape from a local sheriff and the county jail where defendant was detained in custody under process issued by the United States Commissioner (now magistrate) was a violation of this section. See United States v. Stead, 528 F.2d 257, 258 (8th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 953 (1976); Credille v. United States, 354 F.2d 652, 653 (10th Cir. 1965). A defendant who escaped from a federally approved prison detention center was properly charged under this section. Milhouse v. Levi, 548 F.2d 357, 361 (D.C. Cir. 1976); United States v. Allen, 432 F.2d 939, 940 (10th Cir. 1970). Courts have likewise held that a defendant who left a halfway house without permission, or a defendant participating in a pre-release program who willfully violated the terms of his extended confinement, committed an escape within the meaning of this section. See United States v. Tapio, 634 F.2d 1092, 1094 (8th Cir. 1980); United States v. Jones, 569 F.2d 499, 500 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 908 (1978); United States v. Taylor, 485 F.2d 1077, 1078 (D.C. Cir. 1973); McCullough v. United States, 369 F.2d 548, 550 (8th Cir. 1966). The escape statute does not punish an escape from state custody even though the escape took place on a federal reservation. United States v. Howard, 654 F.2d 522, 525 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 944 (1981). An escape from incarceration pursuant to the civil contempt statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1826, is an offense under 28 U.S.C. § 1826(c) although not an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 751. See this Manual at 1822. When the prisoner is also serving a criminal sentence which is suspended for the term of the civil contempt confinement, the prisoner's reversionary status as a prisoner on the criminal conviction may provide a basis for an escape charge under Section 751. However, no law on this issue currently exists. [cited in Criminal Resource Manual 1812; USAM 9-69.500]