10 U.S.C. § 921
Art. 121. Larceny and wrongful appropriation
Historical and Revision Notes | ||
|---|---|---|
Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
921(a) 921(b) | 50:715(a). 50:715(b). | May 5, 1950, ch. 169, § 1 (Art. 121), 64 Stat. 140. |
In subsection (a), the words “whatever” and “true” are omitted as surplusage. The word “it” is substituted for the words “the same” in clauses (1) and (2).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,386
cases (66 in the last 5 years), 1957–2026 · leading case: United States v. Reed
United States v. Reed (2000)
“The charges and specifications of which appellant was convicted were two specifications of making false official statements, in violation of Article 107, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 907 , and one specification of larceny, in violation of Article 121, UCMJ, 10 USC…”
United States v. Binegar (2001)
“another person of the use and benefit of property”; (b) “defraud another person of the use and benefit of property”; (c) “appropriate it [the property] to his own use”; or (d) “appropriate it to .”
United States v. George William Blood (04-5101) and Stephen L. Crittenden (04-5261) (2006)
“10 U.S.C. § 921 (a) (emphasis added). “Another person” contrasts with “any person” that begins the section, which, like “whoever” in § 513(a), is anyone subject to prosecution under the law.”
Middendorf v. Henry (1976)
“[8] See 10 U. S. C. §§ 921 , 928. Figures supplied by the federal parties indicate that in 1973, 14% of the summary courts-martial conducted by the Navy were for "nonmilitary offenses.”
Weiss v. United States (1994)
“Petitioner Weiss, a United States Marine, pleaded guilty at a special court-martial to one count of larceny, in violation of Article 121 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ or Code), 10 U. S. C. § 921 . He was sentenced to three months of confinement, partial…”
United States v. Phillips (2011)
“Consistent with his plea, Appellant was convicted by a military judge sitting as a general court-martial of larceny in violation of Article 121, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 921 (2006). Contrary to his plea, Appellant was convicted of wrongfully possessing child pornography as conduct…”
United States v. Collier (2009)
“Facts A special court-martial composed of members convicted Appellant, contrary to her pleas, of one specification of larceny of military property and one specification of obstructing justice by wrongfully endeavoring to influence the testimony of a witness, in violation of…”
Rush v. Hillside Buffalo, LLC (2018)
“Plaintiff has also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, a motion for a preliminary injunction, and a motion for an expedited hearing on his preliminary injunction application.”
United States v. Dowty (2004)
“A general court-martial composed of officer members convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of three specifications of larceny and one specification of fraud against the United States in violation of Articles 121 and 132, Uniform Code of Military Justice [hereinafter UCMJ],…”
United States v. Foster (1994)
“There, the accused was charged with larceny and forgery, violations of Articles 121 and 123, UCMJ, 10 USC §§ 921 and 923, respectively. A glance at the elements of those offense reveals conclusively that the elements of neither was derivable from or includable within elements of…”
United States v. Gay (2015)
“PUBLISHED OPINION OF THE COURT WEBER, Judge: The appellant pled not guilty at a general court-martial to four specifications of larceny, four specifications of wrongful appropriation, one specification of wire fraud, and one specification of identity theft, in violation of…”
United States v. Antonelli (1992)
“Opinion of the Court WISS, Judge: At his general court-martial, which included enlisted members, Antonelli pleaded not guilty to charges alleging larceny of money from the United States over a peri *123 od of time and two instances of signing a false official document with…”
— 10 U.S.C. § 921(a)(1) — 1 case
United States v. Spencer (2026)
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.