United States v. Warren

1 Citing case

  1. United States v. Brown

    1:19-po-00016-SAB (E.D. Cal. Sep. 14, 2022)

    However, the Government submits that as this Court has previously held, the fugitive tolling doctrine can “coexist” with Pocklington. See United States v. Ertell, No. 1:11-CR-00278-SAB, 2016 WL 7491630, at *6-8 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2016); United States v. Warren, No. 3:91-72-SI, 2016 WL 3457161, at *3-4 (D. Or. June 23, 2016), affd, 708 Fed.Appx. 472 (9th Cir. 2018); United States v. Fields, No. 6:13-cr-0001-MJS, 2016 WL 6611550, at *3 (E.D. Cal. November 9, 2016); United States v. Abraham, No. 1:12-CR-00163-BAM, 2016 WL 4466001, at *1 (E.D. Cal. August 23, 2016). The Government emphasizes “[t]he fugitive tolling doctrine rests on the principle that ‘[a] person on supervised release should not receive credit against his period of supervised release for time [when], by virtue of his own wrongful act, he was not in fact observing the terms of his supervised release.'