is ultimately assigned, not the local facility in which [the prisoner] sits awaiting transfer to that facility.’ ” Id. at 413. Taylor involved a prisoner, previously sentenced on state charges, who was transported multiple times from a county jail to federal custody and returned to the county jail before the prisoner was tried in fed l under Article V(c) was necessary to achieve general compliance with the statutory mandate and not to protect the prisoner from being prejudiced if his trial was delayed for more than 180 days after demand). Defendant argues that the IAD applies to prisoners who have been sentenced and are incarcerated, and that it is immaterial whether incarceration is at a temporary detention facility or at the priso 08 WL 3834089, at *3 (W.D.Va. Aug. 15, 2008) (<HOLDING>), recommendation adopted by United States v.
holding that because the appellant did not present to the administrative agency the argument it raised before this court the issue was not preserved and holding that even if preserved the argument failed holding that a defendant is not entitled to dismissal of an indictment under the iad as no detainer had been lodged against him holding that if the time limits of the iad have been violated the charges underlying the detainer must be dismissed holding that where the meaning of the jurys verdict was not clear in light of the trial courts jury instructions the court of appeals erred in directing entry of judgment for respondent the case should have been remanded to the trial judge who was in the best position to pass upon the question of a new trial in light of the evidence his charge to the jury and the jurys verdict holding that the governments argument that the iad did not apply because the prisoner had not been assigned to a permanent facility was not persuasive in light of the supreme courts holding in bozeman