## Facts

- Manuel Antonio Noriega, commander of the Panamanian Defense Forces, was seized by U.S. forces after hostilities in Panama beginning December 20, 1989, and brought to the United States.
- Noriega had been indicted in 1988 in the Southern District of Florida and was convicted in 1992 of racketeering and drug-trafficking offenses and sentenced to imprisonment.
- At sentencing (and after a notice of appeal), Noriega argued he was a prisoner of war (POW) under the 1949 Third Geneva Convention (Geneva III) and therefore could not be confined as an ordinary federal inmate.
- The court received briefing, heard argument, and considered an amicus submission addressing Geneva III’s application to Noriega’s post-conviction confinement.
- The dispute focused on whether Geneva III barred incarcerating a POW convicted of common crimes in a federal penitentiary and what authority the district court had to resolve the issue incident to sentencing.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court retained authority, incident to sentencing and despite a filed notice of appeal, to determine POW status and the legal constraints on confinement under Geneva III.
2. Whether the hostilities in Panama constituted an “armed conflict” triggering Geneva III, and whether Noriega qualified as a POW under the Convention.
3. If Geneva III applied, whether it prohibited confining a POW convicted of domestic crimes in a federal Bureau of Prisons facility, and what treatment standards were required.

## Decision

- The court held it retained authority incident to sentencing to decide Noriega’s POW status and the resulting legal constraints on confinement.
- The court held Geneva III applied because the hostilities constituted an “armed conflict” and Noriega, as a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict, qualified for POW status.
- The court concluded Geneva III did not categorically forbid confinement in a federal penitentiary for a POW convicted of common crimes, so long as confinement complied with the Convention’s requirements.
- The court rejected the request to order transfer to Department of Defense custody or mandate incarceration in a military facility, leaving placement largely to the Executive’s institutional assignment authority.

## Legal Principles

- A sentencing court may resolve legal questions related to conditions of confinement when those questions bear on the lawful execution of the sentence, even after conviction and notice of appeal.
- Geneva III applies to “any other armed conflict” between parties to the Convention, and members of a party’s armed forces captured in such a conflict are entitled to POW status.
- A court may serve as a “competent tribunal” to determine POW status where the Convention requires status resolution in cases of doubt.
- POW status regulates treatment and conditions of confinement; it does not, by itself, create a judicial power to direct the inmate’s custodial agency or require confinement only in military facilities.
- Confinement of a POW after conviction for domestic crimes is permissible in a civilian penitentiary if the detaining power provides treatment consistent with Geneva III protections.

## Conclusion

The court determined Noriega was entitled to POW status under Geneva III but held that the Convention did not bar his imprisonment in the federal prison system; instead, it required that his confinement comply with POW protections while leaving institutional placement decisions to the government’s custodial authorities.


United States v. Noriega, 808 F. Supp. 791 (S.D. Fla. 1992)