IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION
August 24, 2012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
JAMIE NICOL NILSEN, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Charles S. Miller, Jr., Magistrate Judge United States District Court
INTERSTATE AGREEMENT ON DETAINERS ORDER
On March 18, 2008, the defendant appeared for his initial appearance and arraignment. Appearing on behalf of the United States was AUSA David Hagler. Assistant Federal Public Defender William Schmidt was appointed as defense counsel and appeared on the defendant's behalf.
Prior to his initial appearance, defendant was incarcerated by the State of North Dakota at the North Dakota State Penitentiary in Bismarck, North Dakota. After the indictment in this case was returned and an arrest warrant issued, a detainer was filed by the United States with the North Dakota prison officials. Pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act ("IADA"), the defendant's appearance before this court for his initial appearance and arraignment was secured by a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum.
During the hearing, the defendant's rights under the IADA to continued federal custody until the charges set forth in the indictment are adjudicated were explained to him. The defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and upon advice of counsel waived the anti-shuttling provisions of the IADA and in open court and stipulated to his continued housing by the State of North Dakota (the "sending state" under the IADA) at the North Dakota State Penitentiary pending trial of the charges on the indictment by the United States (the "receiving state" under the IADA). The United States concurred in this stipulation.
Based on the foregoing stipulation of the defendant and the United States and the defendant's wavier of the anti-shuttling provisions of the IADA, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the defendant be housed in the "sending state" under the IADA, at the North Dakota State Penitentiary in Bismarck, North Dakota, pending trial of this matter or until further order of the court. Further, pursuant to the defendant's waiver, the return of the defendant to his place of incarceration pending trial shall not be grounds under the IADA for dismissal of the charges set forth in the indictment.
Charles S. Miller, Jr.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.