In Giles v. State, 908 S.W.2d 303 (Tex. App.--El Paso 1995, pet. ref'd), the State indicted the defendant who was in a federal prison serving time (as opposed to awaiting trial). The defendant appealed his federal conviction, but while the appeal was pending, he was transported to El Paso pursuant to the State's request under the Detainers Act. While in the State's custody, the trial court suppressed evidence, and the State appealed. During the pendency of the State's appeal, the defendant's federal conviction was reversed and the U.S. Marshals retrieved the defendant for his new trial in federal court. The defendant pled guilty to the federal charges and was returned to El Paso. He filed two motions to dismiss in state court for violations of the 120 day rule and the anti- shuttling provision of Article IV. These were denied. On appeal, the El Paso court found that the Detainers Act no longer applied to the defendant. Specifically, the court stated: "Although the State initially obtained custody of Giles through the IADA because Giles was at the time, a prisoner serving a term of imprisonment subject to his appeal, once Giles' federal conviction was reversed and remanded for new trial, Giles was no longer a prisoner serving a term of imprisonment....The goal of the IADA...became inapplicable to Giles when he ceased to be a prisoner serving a term of imprisonment....The reversal essentially returned Giles to the status of an accused in custody awaiting trial in one jurisdiction with multiple indictments pending in additional jurisdictions. We find that the IADA did not apply to Giles as of the date of the reversal of his conviction....At that point, no violation of the IADA had yet occurred." (Giles, 908 S.W.2d at 306.)