50 C.F.R. § 10.21

Director

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

(a) Mail forwarded to the Director for law enforcement purposes should be addressed to Chief, Office of Law Enforcement, at the address provided at 50 CFR 2.1(b).

(b) Mail sent to the Director regarding permits for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Fauna (CITES), injurious wildlife, Wild Bird Conservation Act species, international movement of all ESA-listed endangered or threatened species, and scientific research on, exhibition of, or interstate commerce in nonnative ESA-listed endangered and threatened species should be addressed to: Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (Attention: Division of Management Authority), at the address provided for the Division of Management Authority at 50 CFR 2.1(b). Address mail for the following permits to the Regional Director. In the address include one of the following: for import/export licenses and exception to designated port permits (Attention: Import/export license); for native endangered and threatened species (Attention: Endangered/threatened species permit); and for migratory birds and eagles (Attention: Migratory bird permit office). You can find addresses for regional offices at 50 CFR 2.2.

[55 FR 48851, Nov. 23, 1990, as amended at 63 FR 52633, Oct. 1, 1998; 80 FR 26467, May 8, 2015]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1974–1974 · leading case: United States v. Graham F. Jarman, Jr., United States of Am. v. Carroll B. Robertson, United States of Am. v. Leroy W. Wheeler, 491 F.2d 764 (4th Cir. 1974).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Graham F. Jarman, Jr., United States of Am. v. Carroll B. Robertson, United States of Am. v. Leroy W. Wheeler, 491 F.2d 764 (4th Cir. 1974). · cites it 2× “1 On appeal, the defendants raise three issues: (1) The federal hunting regulation under which they were charged, 50 CFR § 10.21 (j), was unconstitutional both on its face and as applied; (2) they should have been granted a trial by jury even though the violation with which they…”

United States v. Swann, 377 F. Supp. 1305 (D. Maryland 1974). · cites it 2× “§§ 703 , 711, 50 C.F.R. § 10.21 (j); 18 U.S.C. § 2 . The offense is *1306 a petty offense.”

United States v. JC Ehrlich Co., Inc., 372 F. Supp. 768 (D. Maryland 1974). “§§ 703 through 711, inclusive, 50 C.F.R. § 10.21 (a) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 , of nolo contendere to counts 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 53, 54, 55, 56 and 60; and accepted the nolle prosequi by the Government of counts 20 through 52, 57 through 59, and 61 through 114; and imposed the maximum…”

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.