Transfer of a Prisoner to State Custody Prior to Release from the Federal Sentence

By Elizabeth Franklin-Best, Esq., and Christopher Zoukis, JD, MBA

Program Statement	5140.44
Subject	Transfer of a Prisoner to State Custody Prior to Release from the Federal Sentence
Current edition	February 16, 2024
Change notices	None
Supersedes	PS 5140.35, Transfer of a Prisoner to State Custody Prior to Release from the Federal Sentence (9/12/2001)
Governing statute	18 U.S.C. § 3623 (offenses on or after Nov. 1, 1987); 18 U.S.C. § 4085 (repealed effective Nov. 1, 1987); place-of-imprisonment authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)
Governing regulation	None implements § 3623. The Program Statement cites the Attorney General’s delegation at 28 C.F.R. § 0.96(c), but that paragraph is written for pre-November 1987 offenses — see “Who decides” below.
Related BP forms	BP-A0394 Detainer Action Letter. The Program Statement states that BP-A0710 (Prisoner Release Notification) and BP-A0648 (Sex Offender Registration and Treatment Notification) are not required for these transfers.
Official PDF	https://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/5140.44.pdf

Checked against the BOP policy set · 2026-09-07 · How we verify

This policy covers the one situation where the Bureau of Prisons hands someone over to a state prison system before the federal sentence is finished — not on loan for a court date, but for good, to serve the rest of the federal term inside a state facility. It happens only when a state’s governor asks for it, and under the Bureau’s own policy it ordinarily happens in the last 90 days before the federal release date. If what you are actually looking at is a temporary loan to a state court on a writ, that is a different policy entirely — see state writs and transfers — and if you are trying to understand routine movement between federal prisons, start with the federal inmate transfer process.

The rule itself: § 3623 transfers

Two things decide these cases. The statute sets three conditions the state has to meet. The Program Statement tells the warden what to put in the memorandum that goes to Washington. Both are reproduced below, verbatim.

What the statute requires — 18 U.S.C. § 3623

“The Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall order that a prisoner who has been charged in an indictment or information with, or convicted of, a State felony, be transferred to an official detention facility within such State prior to his release from a Federal prison facility if—

(1) the transfer has been requested by the Governor or other executive authority of the State;

(2) the State has presented to the Director a certified copy of the indictment, information, or judgment of conviction; and

(3) the Director finds that the transfer would be in the public interest.

If more than one request is presented with respect to a prisoner, the Director shall determine which request should receive preference. The expenses of such transfer shall be borne by the State requesting the transfer.”

Quoted from 18 U.S.C. § 3623.

Read the verbs carefully, because they are doing real work. The Director shall order the transfer — but only once condition (3) is satisfied, and condition (3) is a discretionary finding. Nothing in the statute tells the Director what “the public interest” means or requires him to make that finding in any particular case. So a state can satisfy conditions (1) and (2) perfectly and still get nothing.

What the Program Statement tells staff to do — PS 5140.44 § 3

“When an institution receives a request from a state authority to transfer an inmate to state custody, the Warden must detail the facts of the state’s request in a memorandum to the SDAD, DSCC.

– The memorandum must also address: – whether the transfer would be in the public’s best interest, – whether the transfer is recommended, and – details about how transportation would be accomplished.

– With the memorandum, the Warden will provide copies of: – the state’s request, and – the indictment, information, or judgment of conviction.

– If the institution does not have a certified copy of the state’s documents on file as a detainer or elsewhere, the institution must secure a certified copy from the state before processing the request.

– If there are detainers on file from other jurisdictions, the Supervisory Correctional Systems Specialist (SCSS) must contact, by telephone or in writing, those jurisdictions to determine whether any other jurisdiction objects to the transfer. The SCSS will then document contact was made with those jurisdictions and save the responses to the inmate’s Judgment and Commitment (J&C) file.

– If such objections are made, the Warden must make that fact known to the SDAD, DSCC in the memorandum and consider the objection in determining whether the transfer is in the public’s best interest. The SDAD, DSCC must consider the objection in approving or denying the transfer.

– If the state request involves an inmate with an STG assignment of International Terrorist, Domestic Terrorist, or any gang-affiliated STG, the ICTB, Central Office, must be contacted for further review and recommendation.”

Reproduced from Program Statement 5140.44 at p. 3. “SDAD, DSCC” is the Senior Deputy Assistant Director of the Designation and Sentence Computation Center in Grand Prairie, Texas. “STG” is a Security Threat Group assignment — the Bureau’s term for a gang or terrorism affiliation recorded in the file. “ICTB” is the Intelligence and Counter Terrorism Branch at Central Office.

The one sentence that most affects the person being transferred

Once the transfer is approved, the Case Management Coordinator sends the receiving state a letter. Under the Bureau’s own policy that letter must say two things:

“- asserts the inmate may not be released on bail, bond, or their own recognizance as long as the federal sentence is in operation; and – requests the appropriate RCPO be informed of any escape, death, or other release of the inmate prior to the federal release date pending arrival of a formal detainer request from the USMS.”

Reproduced from Program Statement 5140.44 at pp. 4–5. “RCPO” is the Regional Correctional Programs Office.

That first bullet is the practical heart of the policy. A person transferred under § 3623 is physically in a state prison but is still serving a federal sentence, and the Bureau’s instruction to the state is that they are not bailable while that federal sentence runs.

How the transfer is actually accomplished

The mechanism is a designation, not a release. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) the Bureau “may designate any available penal or correctional facility that meets minimum standards of health and habitability established by the Bureau, whether maintained by the Federal Government or otherwise.” A state prison is a facility “otherwise” maintained. So when the transfer is approved, the Bureau designates the state facility as the place where the rest of the federal sentence will be served.

PS 5140.44 states the same limit at p. 3: “A state facility may be designated only if it is appropriate and suitable as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b).”

Two consequences follow, and they matter more than anything else on this page.

First, the federal sentence keeps running. The person has not been released to the state; the state facility has become the designated place of federal imprisonment. The Program Statement directs the Regional Correctional Programs Office to “monitor the sentence in the same manner as they monitor other federal sentences that are being served concurrently with a state sentence at a state institution” (PS 5140.44 at p. 5).

Second, the designation decision is unusually insulated from review. Section 3621(b) closes with: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a designation of a place of imprisonment under this subsection is not reviewable by any court.” That sentence does not answer every question a habeas petition might raise — a claim that the Bureau miscomputed a sentence is a different claim from a claim that it picked the wrong prison — but anyone considering litigation over where the Bureau put someone should read it first. Questions about the computation itself belong with challenging a BOP sentence computation.

Who decides, and where the file goes

PS 5140.44 opens its delegation section at p. 2 by saying the Attorney General has delegated to the Director “the authority to designate places of imprisonment or confinement where the sentences of inmates must be served, and to order transfers from one institution to another, whether maintained by the federal government or otherwise as set forth at 28 CFR subpart Q, § 0.96(c).”

That is worth reading against the regulation itself, because the regulation is narrower than the sentence suggests. 28 C.F.R. § 0.96(c) currently reads:

“(c) Designating places of imprisonment or confinement where the sentences of prisoners shall be served and ordering transfers from one institution to another, whether maintained by the Federal Government or otherwise, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 4082 as it existed before the enactment of Pub. L. 98-473 (applicable to offenses committed prior to November 1, 1987).”

The bolded clause is in the regulation; the emphasis is ours. Paragraph (c) is a delegation for old-law cases, keyed to a repealed statute. For an offense committed on or after November 1, 1987, the Bureau’s designation authority does not come from an Attorney General delegation at all — it comes straight from 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b), which grants it to the Bureau by statute, and the transfer authority comes straight from 18 U.S.C. § 3623, which names the Director directly.

The same regulation has a paragraph that does speak to state transfer requests, and the Program Statement does not cite it. 28 C.F.R. § 0.96(m) covers “receiving and reviewing requests by the executive authority of states or the District of Columbia for, and authorizing the transfer of, inmates pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 4085 as it existed before the enactment of Public Law 98-473 (applicable to offenses committed prior to November 1, 1987)” — again, the old-law track, alongside temporary transfers under Article IV of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers.

None of this changes what happens to anyone. It does mean that if you are reading the Program Statement to find the rule that binds the Bureau, the regulation it points you to is not it. For a modern offense the binding law is the statute.

The 2024 edition of this Program Statement moved the operating decision down to a named official:

“The SDAD, DSCC is the delegated authority to approve transfers to state officials and to designate a state department of corrections as a place of imprisonment where an inmate will serve a federal sentence. Any such transfer should occur within a reasonable period of time before the inmate’s release from a federal sentence, ordinarily within the last 90 days.”

Reproduced from Program Statement 5140.44 at p. 2.

That is the source of the 90-day figure, and it is worth being precise about what it is. It is the Bureau telling its own staff when these transfers should ordinarily happen. It is not a deadline, not a right, and not a promise. “Ordinarily” is the operative word.

After the transfer, the Judgment and Commitment file, Inmate Central File and medical file go to the Regional Correctional Programs Office in the region where the state prison sits — the Program Statement gives staff three working days to send them (PS 5140.44 at p. 5). The Case Management Coordinator also sends a memorandum asking the U.S. Marshals Service to lodge a federal detainer, so the federal interest is preserved while the person is in state hands (PS 5140.44 at p. 6).

On the federal release date, the Regional Correctional Programs Office satisfies the federal computation, records it as a prior commitment in the Bureau’s system, and notifies the Marshals Service to remove the detainer (PS 5140.44 at p. 6).

What a § 3623 transfer to state custody means for you

If you are the person inside: you cannot start this process

You cannot start this process. Under the statute the request has to come from “the Governor or other executive authority of the State” — not from you, not from your family, and not from your lawyer. A cop-out asking to be transferred to state custody under § 3623 has no one to act on it, because the Bureau has nothing to approve until a state asks.

What you can do is make sure the record is accurate. If there are detainers on file from other jurisdictions, the Program Statement directs staff to contact those jurisdictions and document whether they object. If your file shows a detainer that has been withdrawn, or shows charges that were dismissed, that is a factual error worth correcting on paper now — not after a decision has been made on a record that includes it. Start with an Inmate Request to Staff to your unit team.

Understand also what the transfer does and does not do. It moves you. It does not end your federal sentence, it does not make you bailable on the state case while the federal term runs, and it does not by itself change how your federal time is computed.

If you are the family: what a § 3623 transfer actually is

The single most useful thing to know is that a § 3623 transfer is a state-initiated request, so the people who can move it are on the state side. A prosecutor, a state department of corrections, or the governor’s office may be able to explain whether a request has been made. The Bureau will not generate one.

Expect the move to be quiet and short-notice. The Bureau’s instruction is that the Case Management Coordinator notifies the Regional Correctional Programs Office and the Designation and Sentence Computation Center of the impending transfer by email; there is no requirement in this Program Statement to notify family. Practically, visiting, phone and mail all change the moment the person is in a state facility, because state rules replace federal ones. Nothing in the Bureau’s policy carries federal visiting or telephone privileges into a state prison.

If you are counsel: § 3623 transfers to state custody

Three points are worth pulling out of the text.

The statute’s mandatory language is conditional. “Shall order . . . if” — and the third “if” is a discretionary public-interest finding, which is where every contested case actually lives. There is no stated standard for that finding in either the statute or the Program Statement.

The Program Statement expressly takes the Interstate Agreement on Detainers and state writs off the table for these transfers: “Provisions of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act and State Writ do not apply in 18 U.S.C. § 4085 and 3623 situations” (PS 5140.44 at p. 1). If your client’s situation is governed by the IAD, this policy is not the one you want — see detainers and the Interstate Agreement on Detainers.

And a § 3623 transfer is not the same thing as a nunc pro tunc designation. Both end with a state facility designated as the place of federal imprisonment, but they come from opposite directions and serve opposite purposes. Section 3623 hands over a person who is in federal custody now. A retroactive designation asks the Bureau to treat time already served in a state prison as federal time — a different request, on a different record, with different consequences. See nunc pro tunc state designation and designation of a state institution for service of a federal sentence.

Applied Insight — Christopher Zoukis, JD, MBA, Managing Director: When we look at a file where a state is asking for a transfer, the first document we want is the certified charging paper the statute requires — not a fax, not a docket printout. The Program Statement tells the institution to secure a certified copy before processing the request, so if it is not in the file, the request is not ripe. The second thing we look for is the detainer-objection documentation, because a jurisdiction that objects has to be surfaced in the warden’s memorandum and weighed. Those two pieces of paper are what the decision is built on.

What changed from PS 5140.35 to 5140.44

The February 16, 2024 edition rescinded PS 5140.35 (9/12/2001) — a twenty-two-year-old policy. The Bureau lists what moved, and the list is unusually informative because most of it is a chain of custody for the decision itself:

“Policy Rescinded 5l40.35 Transfer of a Prisoner to State Custody Prior to Release from the Federal Sentence (9/12/2001)

– The Senior Deputy Assistant Director, Designation and Sentence Computation Center (SDAD, DSCC) now has the authority to approve transfers of federal inmates to state officials and to designate a state department of corrections as a place of imprisonment where an inmate will serve a federal sentence. – Added requirement for review by the Intelligence and Counter Terrorism Branch (ICTB), Central Office, if the state request involves an inmate with a Security Threat Group (STG) assignment of International Terrorist, Domestic Terrorist, or any gang-affiliated STG. – Regional Inmate Systems Administrator changed to Regional Correctional Programs Office (RCPO). – Inmate Systems Manager changed to Case Management Coordinator (CMC). – Community Corrections Manager changed to Residential Reentry Manager (RRM). – Removed reference to ‘Old Law’ unsatisfied committed fines.”

Reproduced from Program Statement 5140.44 at pp. 1–2. The “5l40.35” spelling, with a lowercase letter L in place of the first digit 1, is how the number is printed in the Bureau’s own document.

Three of those changes matter to a reader rather than to a filing clerk.

The decision moved to Grand Prairie. Approval now sits with a named official at the Designation and Sentence Computation Center rather than with a regional office. That is where correspondence about a § 3623 transfer ends up, and it is the same office that handles designation and sentence computation generally.

A new referral was added for terrorism and gang assignments. If the Bureau’s file carries a Security Threat Group assignment of International Terrorist, Domestic Terrorist, or any gang-affiliated STG, the request now goes to the Intelligence and Counter Terrorism Branch for further review before a decision. An STG assignment the person disputes therefore has a consequence here that it did not have under the 2001 edition. STG and Public Safety Factor assignments are recorded through the inmate security designation and custody classification process.

The “Old Law” committed-fine reference is gone. The 2001 edition carried a provision tied to unsatisfied committed fines under the pre-1987 sentencing regime; the 2024 edition removed it. If you are working a case governed by the old law, the relevant computation authority is the old-law sentence computation manual, not this policy.

The Bureau reissued twenty-three Program Statements effective 22 June 2026 and dozens more between February and May 2026, retiring twenty-four superseded statements. PS 5140.44 was not among them. Its February 16, 2024 edition remains the current one, and it carries no change notice.

Where people get stuck filing a cop-out for a state transfer

“I filed a cop-out asking to be sent to state custody and nothing happened.” Nothing happened because there is nothing for staff to act on. The transfer is triggered by a request from a state’s governor or other executive authority. A request from the incarcerated person is not one of the statutory conditions. The route that does exist is a factual one: if your file misstates your detainers or your charges, use an Inmate Request to Staff to your unit team and Correctional Systems to get the record corrected, and escalate through the Administrative Remedy Program — informal resolution (BP-8), then BP-9 to the warden, BP-10 to the region, BP-11 to the Office of National Inmate Appeals — if it is not corrected.

“The transfer was denied and we were never told why.” The Program Statement does address this: “If the SDAD, DSCC denies the transfer, the Warden must inform the requesting state of the denial and the reason” (PS 5140.44 at p. 4). Note who receives that explanation. The notification runs to the requesting state, not to the incarcerated person. In practice the state agency that asked is the one holding the answer, which is another reason the state side is usually the more productive place to ask.

“Another state objected and it killed the request.” An objection does not automatically kill anything, but it does have to be documented and weighed. The Program Statement directs the Supervisory Correctional Systems Specialist to contact every jurisdiction with a detainer on file, document the contact, and save the responses to the Judgment and Commitment file; the warden must then surface any objection in the memorandum, and the Designation and Sentence Computation Center “must consider the objection.” If the objecting jurisdiction has since dismissed its charges or withdrawn its detainer, that is a factual correction with a real consequence — and it runs through the Detainer Action Letter (BP-394) process, not through this policy.

“He was moved to a different federal prison first and we do not know why.” That is contemplated by the policy. A state may ask that the person be moved to a federal institution inside that state to make the handover easier. The Program Statement permits it “only if time permits, the requested institution is suitable for that inmate, and the transfer does not interfere with the routine inmate movement,” and says the person “will be housed as a holdover until the state assumes custody” (PS 5140.44 at p. 4). A holdover placement is temporary by design and usually offers less programming and fewer privileges than a regular designation.

“Who is paying for this, and can the family be asked to?” No. The statute is explicit: “The expenses of such transfer shall be borne by the State requesting the transfer.” The Program Statement repeats it at p. 4. Neither the statute nor the policy contemplates any cost to the incarcerated person or the family.

Related BOP policy on transfers to state custody

• State writs and transfers (PS 5875.13) — the temporary loan of a federal prisoner to a state court, which is a different mechanism with different consequences for custody.
• Detainers and the Interstate Agreement on Detainers — expressly inapplicable to § 3623 transfers, and frequently confused with them.
• Detainer Action Letter (BP-394) — the form the Bureau sends to other jurisdictions to tell them a transfer has occurred.
• Designation of a state institution for service of a federal sentence (PS 5160.05) — named in this Program Statement as the model for the letters the region sends the state.
• Nunc pro tunc state designation — the retroactive counterpart, running in the opposite direction.
• Correctional Systems Manual (PS 5800.15) and receiving and discharge — the release-side mechanics.
• Release notification requirements — the notification policy this one carves an exception to.
• Civil contempt commitments (PS 5140.41) and the Institution Hearing Program (PS 5111.04) — the other two ways a federal sentence intersects with a different authority’s claim on the person.
• The federal inmate transfer process — the plain-language companion to this page.
• Prior custody credit and challenging a BOP sentence computation — where computation disputes actually get worked.

Frequently Asked Questions About Transfer to State Custody

---

Program Statement 5140.44 — full text

What follows is the Bureau’s own text, reproduced in full from its published PDF. Nothing is shortened or paraphrased. Source: PS 5140.44 (PDF).

U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons

PROGRAM STATEMENT

OPI: CPD/DSC NUMBER: 5140.44 DATE: February 16, 2024

Transfer of a Prisoner to State Custody Prior to Release from the Federal Sentence

/s/ Approved: Colette S. Peters Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons

1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

To establish transfer procedures under Title 18 U.S.C. § 4085 and 3623, which authorize the Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) to transfer an inmate who is wanted by a state authority to that state authority’s custody. Ordinarily, such transfers are done within 90 days of the inmate’s final release from their federal sentence.

• Title 18 U.S.C. § 4085, repealed November 1, 1987, authorized the Bureau to transfer an inmate, who is charged in an indictment or information, or is convicted of a state felony, to an official state detention facility prior to the release from their federal sentence.
• Title 18 U.S.C. § 3623, Transfer of a Prisoner to State Authority, was enacted as part of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-473) and became effective on November 1, 1987. A request by a governor, or other executive authority of the state, to transfer an inmate to a state authority may be accomplished under 18 U.S.C. § 3623 for any inmate whose offense was committed on or after that date.
• Provisions of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act and State Writ do not apply in 18 U.S.C. § 4085 and 3623 situations.

a. Summary of Changes.

Policy Rescinded 5l40.35 Transfer of a Prisoner to State Custody Prior to Release from the Federal Sentence (9/12/2001)

5140.44 2/16/2024 2

• The Senior Deputy Assistant Director, Designation and Sentence Computation Center (SDAD, DSCC) now has the authority to approve transfers of federal inmates to state officials and to designate a state department of corrections as a place of imprisonment where an inmate will serve a federal sentence.
• Added requirement for review by the Intelligence and Counter Terrorism Branch (ICTB), Central Office, if the state request involves an inmate with a Security Threat Group (STG) assignment of International Terrorist, Domestic Terrorist, or any gang-affiliated STG.
• Regional Inmate Systems Administrator changed to Regional Correctional Programs Office (RCPO).
• Inmate Systems Manager changed to Case Management Coordinator (CMC).
• Community Corrections Manager changed to Residential Reentry Manager (RRM).
• Removed reference to “Old Law” unsatisfied committed fines.

b. Program Objectives. A federal inmate’s sentence may be completed in state custody when

an inmate’s transfer has been requested by the state and it is in the public’s best interest.

Institution Supplement. None required. Should local facilities make any changes outside the required changes in the national policy or establish any additional local procedures to implement the national policy, the local Union may invoke to negotiate procedures or appropriate arrangements.

2. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY

• The Attorney General has delegated, to the Director of the Bureau, the authority to designate places of imprisonment or confinement where the sentences of inmates must be served, and to order transfers from one institution to another, whether maintained by the federal government or otherwise as set forth at 28 CFR subpart Q, § 0.96(c).
• The SDAD, DSCC is the delegated authority to approve transfers to state officials and to designate a state department of corrections as a place of imprisonment where an inmate will serve a federal sentence. Any such transfer should occur within a reasonable period of time before the inmate’s release from a federal sentence, ordinarily within the last 90 days.

5140.44 2/16/2024 3

3. STATE REQUEST FOR TRANSFER TO STATE CUSTODY

When an institution receives a request from a state authority to transfer an inmate to state custody, the Warden must detail the facts of the state’s request in a memorandum to the SDAD, DSCC.

• The memorandum must also address:
• whether the transfer would be in the public’s best interest,
• whether the transfer is recommended, and
• details about how transportation would be accomplished.
• With the memorandum, the Warden will provide copies of:
• the state’s request, and
• the indictment, information, or judgment of conviction.
• If the institution does not have a certified copy of the state’s documents on file as a detainer or elsewhere, the institution must secure a certified copy from the state before processing the request.
• If there are detainers on file from other jurisdictions, the Supervisory Correctional Systems Specialist (SCSS) must contact, by telephone or in writing, those jurisdictions to determine whether any other jurisdiction objects to the transfer. The SCSS will then document contact was made with those jurisdictions and save the responses to the inmate’s Judgment and Commitment (J&C) file.
• If such objections are made, the Warden must make that fact known to the SDAD, DSCC in the memorandum and consider the objection in determining whether the transfer is in the public’s best interest. The SDAD, DSCC must consider the objection in approving or denying the transfer.
• If the state request involves an inmate with an STG assignment of International Terrorist, Domestic Terrorist, or any gang-affiliated STG, the ICTB, Central Office, must be contacted for further review and recommendation.

4. DESIGNATION OF PLACE OF CONFINEMENT

A state facility may be designated only if it is appropriate and suitable as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). The SDAD, DSCC must notify the Warden by memorandum of the approval or denial.

5140.44 2/16/2024 4

• Transfer Approved. The facility identified by the state department of corrections will be designated as the place for the inmate to serve the balance of the federal sentence. The Warden will make the necessary transfer arrangements.
• Transfer Denied. If the SDAD, DSCC denies the transfer, the Warden must inform the requesting state of the denial and the reason.

5. TRANSFER EXPENSES

Title 18 U.S.C. § 3623, requires the requesting state pay for the expenses of a transfer.

• State agents, as approved by the Governor, or other executive authority, may assume custody directly from the federal institution where the inmate is confined, regardless of whether the federal institution is located in that state. The state will be requested to provide the signatures of the agents assuming custody.
• The Warden may request the transfer be completed by the United States Marshals Service (USMS), or that state authorities use their own agents, when the inmate is a serious custody risk (e.g., inmate with Maximum custody).
• To facilitate the transfer of custody, the state may request the inmate be transferred to a federal institution in that state. The inmate may be transferred only if time permits, the requested institution is suitable for that inmate, and the transfer does not interfere with the routine inmate movement. In such circumstances, the Warden may request that the SDAD, DSCC authorize transfer to an institution consistent with the state where the inmate is housed.
• If transferred to another federal institution for the state’s convenience, the inmate will be housed as a holdover until the state assumes custody. The CMC at the final holdover institution will execute the transfer order and return it to the sending institution for inclusion in the J&C file. The file will then be forwarded to the RCPO of the region consistent with the state where the inmate is housed.

6. TRANSFER PROCEDURES

After the SDAD, DSCC approves of the transfer, the Warden will coordinate the inmate’s transfer to the state.

• The CMC will provide state authorities with a letter that:

5140.44 2/16/2024 5

• asserts the inmate may not be released on bail, bond, or their own recognizance as long as the federal sentence is in operation; and
• requests the appropriate RCPO be informed of any escape, death, or other release of the inmate prior to the federal release date pending arrival of a formal detainer request from the USMS.
• Inmates transferring to a detaining authority do not require completion of a BP-A0710, Prisoner Release Notification form or a BP-A0648, Sex Offender Registration and Treatment Notification form. For further information refer to the Program Statement Notification Requirements Upon Release of Sex Offenders, Violent Offenders, and Drug Traffickers.
• The SDAD, DSCC is the official transfer authorization that causes the exchange of custody; however, the CMC must secure release paperwork from the unit team.
• Clearance to transfer a Central Inmate Monitoring case must be obtained from the appropriate office.
• The CMC will inform the appropriate RCPO and SDAD, DSCC of the impending transfer by electronic mail.
• When the release occurs, the CMC will forward the J&C file, Inmate Central File, medical file, and all copies of documents pertaining to the transfer to the RCPO in the region where the state institution is located within three working days.
• The RCPO must retain the J&C and all the inmate files, to be closed out upon the inmate’s final release. The RCPO will monitor the sentence in the same manner as they monitor other federal sentences that are being served concurrently with a state sentence at a state institution.
• Upon initial transfer to state custody, and in preparation for final release from the federal sentence, the RCPO will correspond with the state department of corrections via letter in the same manner as described in the Program Statement Designation of State Institution for Service of Federal Sentence.

7. NOTIFYING THE UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE

The CMC will send a memorandum to the USMS requesting that a federal detainer be filed for the Bureau. The CMC will make release notification(s) to other appropriate federal agencies in accordance with established procedures.

5140.44 2/16/2024 6

8. DETAINERS AND NOTIFICATIONS

If the inmate has other detainers or requests for notifications on file, the SCSS must:

• forward a BP-A0394, Detainer Action Letter form to the appropriate state authorities to inform them of the transfer, and
• notify those state authorities their detainers or requests for notifications have been forwarded.

9. INMATES HOUSED IN NON-FEDERAL FACILITIES

RRMs have the same delegated authority regarding the procedures in this Program Statement as a Warden in a Bureau institution.

10. SATISFACTION OF FEDERAL SENTENCE

On the inmate’s federal release date, the RCPO is responsible for satisfying and making the computation a prior commitment in the Bureau’s Inmate Information System and notifying the USMS to remove the detainer.

5140.44 2/16/2024 7

REFERENCES

Program Statements 5100.08 CN-1 Inmate Security Designation and Custody Classification System (9/4/2019) 5110.17 Notification Requirements Upon Release of Sex Offenders, Violent Offenders, and Drug Traffickers (5/16/2014) 5160.05 Designation of State Institution for Service of Federal Sentence (1/16/2003) 5321.08 Unit Management Manual (8/10/2017) 5800.15 CN-1 Correctional Systems Manual (9/23/2016) 5875.13 Transfer of Inmates to State Agents for Production on State Writs (2/20/2015)

ACA Standards American Correctional Association Performance-Based Standards and Expanded Practices for Adult Correctional Institutions (5th Edition): None American Correctional Association Performance-Based Standards for Adult Local Detention Facilities (4th Edition): None American Correctional Association Standards for Administration of Correctional Agencies (2nd Edition): 2-CO-1E-04, 2-CO-4B-02

Records Retention Requirements Requirements and retention guidance for records and information applicable to this program are available in the Records and Information Disposition Schedule (RIDS) on the Bureau’s intranet site.

Reviewed for legal accuracy by Elizabeth Franklin-Best, Esq., Principal Attorney·September 2026