28 C.F.R. § 0.111

General functions

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

The Director of the United States Marshals Service shall direct and supervise all activities of the U.S. Marshals Service including:

(a) Execution of Federal arrest warrants pursuant to rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Federal parole violator warrants pursuant to section 4206 of title 18 U.S. Code, and Federal custodial and extradition warrants as directed.

(b) The service of all civil and criminal process emanating from the Federal judicial system including the execution of lawful writs and court orders pursuant to section 569(b), title 28, U.S. Code.

(c) Provisions for the health, safety, and welfare of Government witnesses and their families, including the psychological well-being and social adjustment of such persons, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3521, et seq., and issuance of necessary regulations for this purpose on behalf of the Attorney General.

(d) Administration and implementation of courtroom security requirements for the Federal judiciary.

(e) Protection of Federal jurists, court officers, and other threatened persons in the interests of justice where criminal intimidation impedes the functioning of the Federal judicial process.

(f) Provision of assistance in the protection of Federal property and buildings.

(g) Direction and supervision of a training school for United States Marshals Service personnel.

(h) Disbursement of appropriated funds to satisfy Government obligations incurred in the administration of justice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 571.

(i) Maintenance of custody, management control, and disposal of property and money seized or forfeited pursuant to any law enforced or administered by the Department of Justice, when the property is seized by the U.S. Marshals Service or delivered to the U.S. Marshals Service in accordance with regulations; and administer the Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture Fund.

(j) Receipt, processing and transportation of prisoners held in the custody of a marshal or transported by the U.S. Marshals Service under cooperative or intergovernmental agreements.

(k) Sustention of custody of Federal prisoners from the time of their arrest by a marshal or their remand to a marshal by the court, until the prisoner is committed by order of the court to the custody of the Attorney General for the service of sentence, otherwise released from custody by the court, or returned to the custody of the U.S. Parole Commission or the Bureau of Prisons.

(l) Coordination and direction of the relationship of the offices of U.S. Marshals with the other organizational units of the Department of Justice.

(m) Approval of staffing requirements of the offices of U.S. Marshals.

(n) Investigation of alleged improper conduct on the part of U.S. Marshals Service personnel.

(o) Acquisition of adequate and suitable detention space, health care and other services and materials required to support prisoners under the custody of the U.S. Marshal who are not housed in Federal facilities.

(p) Approval of “other necessary expenditures in the line of duty” of U.S. Marshals and Deputy U.S. Marshals under 28 U.S.C. 567(3).

(q) Exercising the power and authority vested in the Attorney General under 28 U.S.C. 510 to conduct and investigate fugitive matters, domestic and foreign, involving escaped federal prisoners, probation, parole, mandatory release, and bond default violators.

[Order No. 516-73, 38 FR 12917, May 17, 1973, as amended by Order No. 905-80, 45 FR 52145, Aug. 6, 1980; Order No. 960-81, 46 FR 52348, Oct. 27, 1981; Order No. 1108-85, 50 FR 40197, Oct. 2, 1985; Order No. 1131-86, 51 FR 15612, Apr. 25, 1986; Order No. 1376-89, 54 FR 47353, Nov. 14, 1989]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 69 cases (28 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case: Matthew Chabal, Jr. v. Ronald Reagan, 841 F.2d 1216 (3rd Cir. 1988).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Matthew Chabal, Jr. v. Ronald Reagan, 841 F.2d 1216 (3rd Cir. 1988). · cites it 3× “28 C.F.R. § 0.111 (c). They control the custody and disposition of assets seized by the Department of Justice in connection with criminal investigations and administer the Department’s Asset Forfeiture Fund.”

N.S. v. Robert Dixon, 141 F.4th 279 (D.C. Cir. 2025). · cites it 3× “” 28 C.F.R. § 0.111 (a). 6 It is undisputed that the Marshals may not make civil immigration arrests without a proper delegation of authority and a warrant.”

Logsdon v. United States Marshal Serv., 91 F.4th 1352 (10th Cir. 2024). “§ 561 (g), including by investigating “alleged improper conduct on the part of [USMS] personnel,” 28 C.F.R. § 0.111 (n). Individuals may submit a complaint by filling out an online form.”

William Franz v. United States of Am., 707 F.2d 582 (D.C. Cir. 1983). · cites it 2× “See 28 C.F.R. § 0.111 (c) (1982) (instructing the Director of the Marshals Service to make “[p]rovision for the health, safety, and welfare of Government witnesses and their families pursuant to sections 501-504 of Pub.”

Aboo v. United States, 86 Fed. Cl. 618 (Fed. Cl. 2009). “28 C.F.R. § 0.111 (c). . The court need not address whether Mr Aboo’s claim falls within the exception to the Tucker Act set forth in Kania v.”

Grundy v. United States, 2 Cl. Ct. 596 (Ct. Cl. 1983). · cites it 2× “Marshal Service by way of a regulation published at 28 CFR 0.111 (1972).” The Organized Crime Control Act does not provide authority from Congress for the contract which plaintiffs allege.”

Franz v. United States, 591 F. Supp. 374 (D.D.C. 1984). · cites it 2× “See, e.g., OBD 2110.2, Ex. A; DOJ 2110.42, Ex. B.”

Emilio Garcia v. United States of Am., 666 F.2d 960 (5th Cir. 1982). “28 C.F.R. § 0.111 (c) (1980). At present, the Marshals Service admits unincarcerated witnesses into the Program only after execution of “Memoranda of Understanding.”

Monteria Najuda Robinson v. William Sauls, 102 F.4th 1337 (11th Cir. 2024). “” 28 C.F.R. § 0.111 (n). The USMS thus has implemented a procedure for reviewing grievances alleging improper action by any task force member, whether a USMS employee or a local or state officer deputized to participate in the task force.”

United States v. Salemme, 91 F. Supp. 2d 141 (D. Mass. 1999). “In addition, there is no regulation, having the force of law, which prohibits the FBI from properly promising an informant use immunity to obtain or maintain his services. This contrasts with the power of the Attorney General to admit individuals to the Witness Protection…”

Rudy Rivera v. Cca, 999 F.3d 647 (9th Cir. 2021). “§ 4086 ; 28 C.F.R. § 0.111 (k), and CoreCivic’s contract with the Marshals prevented CoreCivic from releasing him.”

Leona Bergmann v. United States, 689 F.2d 789 (8th Cir. 1982). “28 C.F.R. § 0.111 (c). Justice Department policy OBD 2110.”

Show all 69 citing cases →

— 28 C.F.R. § 0.111(c) — 1 case

Franz v. United States, 591 F. Supp. 374 (D.D.C. 1984). “See, e.g., OBD 2110.2, Ex. A; DOJ 2110.42, Ex. B.”

— 28 C.F.R. § 0.111(j) — 1 case

Story v. Robinson, 689 F.2d 1176 (3rd Cir. 1982).

— 28 C.F.R. § 0.111(o) — 1 case

Lettieri v. United States Fed. Marshals (W.D.N.Y. 2023).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.