36 C.F.R. § 1.3
Penalties
(a) A person convicted of violating a provision of the regulations contained in parts 1 through 7, part 9 subpart B, and parts 12, 13, and 14 of this chapter shall be subject to the criminal penalties provided under 18 U.S.C. 1865.
(b) [Reserved]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 43
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case: San Francisco Herring Ass'n v. Usdoi, 946 F.3d 564 (9th Cir. 2019).
San Francisco Herring Ass'n v. Usdoi, 946 F.3d 564 (9th Cir. 2019). “See 36 C.F.R. § 1.3 (a); 18 U.S.C. § 1865 (a).”
Lewis v. United States, 518 U.S. 322 (1996). “§ 216 (penalties under Fair Labor Standards Act); 36 CFR § 1.3 (1995) (violation of National Park Service regulations); id.”
United States v. Barry L. Brown, 364 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2004). “The magistrate judge found Brown guilty of all three offenses and sentenced him pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 1.3 . 4 On Count I, Brown was sentenced to a one-year term of probation; and, as to all counts, he was ordered to *1270 complete -DUI school, perform 50 hours of community…”
Gordon Price v. Merrick Garland, 45 F.4th 1059 (D.C. Cir. 2022). “§ 1865 ; 36 C.F.R. § 1.3 , 5.5(a). These regulations are consistent with others that apply to various types of commercial activity conducted on land administered by the NPS.”
United States v. Wesley G. Craner, 652 F.2d 23 (9th Cir. 1981). “36 C.F.R. § 1.3 (1980). Craner’s appeal raises the issue whether this offense is a “serious” one for which the Federal Constitution 2 guarantees a trial by jury.”
United States v. Brotzman, 708 F. Supp. 713 (D. Maryland 1989). “A separate penalty provision is set forth in 36 C.F.R. § 1.3 (a) (1988), providing penalties consisting only of a fine of not more than $500, imprisonment for no longer than six months, or both, plus liability for the costs of prosecution.”
UNITED STATES of Am., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gary Wayne GLENN, Defendant-Appellant, 667 F.2d 1269 (9th Cir. 1982). “Glenn’s FYCA sentences on the other two counts were longer than the sentences an adult could have received, however. An adult could have been sentenced to a maximum of one year’s incarceration for possession of PCP, 21 U.”
United States v. Ramirez, 555 F. Supp. 736 (E.D. Cal. 1983). “” It does not specify whether the advice as to the “maximum possible penalties” was the maximum allowed by law (see 36 C.F.R. § 1.3 (a)) or the maximum the magistrate intended to impose in the event of conviction.”
United States v. Sheehan, 512 F.3d 621 (D.C. Cir. 2008). “36 C.F.R. § 1.3 (a). Appellant argues that because none of the applicable provisions in the regulations contains a mens rea element, “a person may be found guilty even when he has no knowledge as to the lack of a permit and, indeed, even where he holds a reasonable, good faith —…”
United States v. Knott, 722 F. Supp. 1365 (E.D. Va. 1989). “36 C.F.R. § 1.3 . Congress prescribed this as the maximum punishment for a violation of any of the National Park Service’s regulations (the “Regulations”).”
United States v. Jack King & Terry Jackson, 581 F.2d 800 (10th Cir. 1978). “§ 3 as implemented in 36 C.F.R. §§ 1.3 (a) and 5.7 (1976), and 18 U.”
John Sturgeon v. Sue Masica, 768 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2014). “Sturgeon does not challenge that finding on appeal.”
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.