Venue in Furlough and "Walkaway" Cases
The "furlough" or "work release" statute, 18 U.S.C. § 4082,
provides a means of extending the limits of confinement of a federal
certain reasons consistent with the public interest and makes a failure to
to a prescribed institution or facility an escape from custody under 18
§ 751. 18 U.S.C. § 4082(a) is consistent with a substantial
law holding that prisoners not in the actual custody of an institution can
from the custody of the Attorney General as provided by 18 U.S.C.
See Murphy v. United States, 481 F.2d 57, 61 (8th Cir. 1973)
(escape from a county jail); Nace v. United States, 334 F.2d 235, 236
Cir. 1964) (failure to return to guidance center from private employment);
United States v. Taylor, 485 F.2d 1077, 1078 (D.C. Cir. 1973)
return to privately owned halfway house); United States v. Hollen,
F.2d 479 (4th Cir. 1968) (failure to return from work release program);
v. United States, 361 F.2d 830, 831 (10th Cir. 1966) (failure to return
speech contest at a school); and Frazier v. United States, 339 F.2d
747 (D.C. Cir. 1964) (escape from a psychiatric hospital). See also
Manual at 1810. (Legal Custody by Attorney
The question of venue for such "furlough" or "walkaway" escape
prosecutions is resolved by reliance on the well established and long
rule that when the crime involved is failure to perform a legally required
the place fixed for performance of the act determines the situs of the
See Johnston v. United States, 351 U.S. 215 (1956).
In like manner, 18 U.S.C. § 4082(a) makes failure to report to
designated institution the basis for the crime. Therefore, the situs of the
crime is the place where the failure to report occurred. Johnston,
supra, and its progeny dictate that an inmate released to report to
another institution and who fails to report as ordered must be prosecuted
that failure in the district in which he/she was to have reported.
United States v. Wray, 608 F.2d 722, 725 (8th Cir. 1979), cert.
denied, 444 U.S. 1048 (1980); United States v. Dyson, 469 F.2d
737 (5th Cir. 1972); United States v. Clark, 468 F.2d 708, 713 (3d
1972); United States v. Daniels, 429 F.2d 1273, 1274 (6th Cir. 1970);
United States v. Scott, 424 F.2d 285 (4th Cir. 1970); Pitt v.
States, 378 F.2d 608, 610 (8th Cir. 1967); United States v.
F.2d 383, 384 (7th Cir. 1957); United States v. Turner, 244 F.2d 404,
(2d Cir. 1957); and Jones v. Pescor, 169 F.2d 853, 855 (8th Cir.
[cited in USAM 9-69.500]