The following excerpt is from United States v. Brown, 875 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir. 2017):
3 In concluding that a federal prisoner remains in federal "custody" for purposes of 751(a) even when housed at a state institution pursuant to writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, we join the interpretations of the Fourth and Seventh Circuits. See United States v. Maday, 799 F.3d 776, 777 (7th Cir. 2015) (transferring a federal inmate "by virtue of a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum" retains enough federal interest "to justify charging him with escaping from federal custody even though the actual custodians from whom he escaped were state employees"); United States v. Evans, 159 F.3d 908, 911 (4th Cir. 1998) ("a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum does not effect a transfer of custody for purposes of 751(a)").
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.