context: But when, particularly after having mentioned that petitioner had served four months in a treatment-type institution, the district court ordered twelve months to be served consecutively to the term for the marijuana conviction, the most logical -- and we hold proper -- reading is that the judge intended twelve more months of incarceration rather than twelve months as reduced by the four months served several years before. This construction is in accord with that given by all of the other circuit courts that have considered the issue.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 883 F.2d 209, 211
citation_a.parenthetical: "when a convicted defendant receives less than the maximum possible sentence, it is presumed that the trial court has credited defendant with time already served unless the record shows otherwise"
citation_a.sentence: United States v. Kendis, 883 F.2d 209, 211 (3d Cir.1989) (“when a convicted defendant receives less than the maximum possible sentence, it is presumed that the trial court has credited defendant with time already served unless the record shows otherwise”); Davis v. United States, 790 F.2d 716, 718 (8th Cir.1986); Ochoa v. Lennon, 750 F.2d 1345, 1348-49 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 979, 106 S.Ct. 382, 88 L.Ed.2d 335 (1985); Granger v. United States, 688 F.2d 1296, 1297 (9th Cir.1982).
citation_b.signal: cf.
citation_b.identifier: 415 F.2d 344, 345
citation_b.parenthetical: same presumption for pre-sentence custody time when court's sentence is less than the maximum sentence that could have been imposed
citation_b.sentence: Cf. Davis v. Willingham, 415 F.2d 344, 345 (10th Cir.1969) (same presumption for pre-sentence custody time when court’s sentence is less than the maximum sentence that could have been imposed).