The Secretary of Agriculture shall make provisions for the protection against destruction by fire and depredations upon the public forests and national forests which may have been set aside or which may be hereafter set aside under the provisions of section 471 11 See References in Text note below. of this title, and which may be continued; and he may make such rules and regulations and establish such service as will insure the objects of such reservations, namely, to regulate their occupancy and use and to preserve the forests thereon from destruction; and any violation of the provisions of this section, sections 473 to 478 and 479 to 482 of this title or such rules and regulations shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500 or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both. Any person charged with the violation of such rules and regulations may be tried and sentenced by any United States magistrate judge specially designated for that purpose by the court by which he was appointed, in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as provided for in section 3401(b) to (e) of title 18.
Notes of Decisions
Wyoming v. United States Dep't of Agric., 661 F.3d 1209 (10th Cir. 2011).
· cites it 8× “As stated above, the Organic Act of 1897 empowers the Secretary of Agriculture, through the Forest Service, to “make provisions for the protection against destruction by fire and depredations upon the public forests and national forests” and “make such rules and regulations .”
California Coastal Comm'n v. Granite Rock Co., 480 U.S. 572 (1987).
· cites it 6× “16 U. S. C. § 551 . Through this delegation of authority, the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service has promulgated regulations so that "use of the surface of National Forest System lands" by those such as Granite Rock, who have unpatented mining claims authorized by the…”
United States v. S. California Edison Co., 300 F. Supp. 2d 964 (E.D. Cal. 2004).
· cites it 5× “§ 2201 ; 16 U.S.C. §§ 551 and 797, et seq. Both the Forest Service and FERC were created for the purpose of carrying out the laws of the United States and to control and protect national interests through administrative regulation.”
United States v. Gabrion, 517 F.3d 839 (6th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 6× “401 , indicated state consent to concurrent jurisdiction and that 16 U.S.C. § 551 indicated federal acceptance of jurisdiction over all national forest lands.”
Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972).
· cites it 2× “35 , 16 U. S. C. § 551 , imposed upon the Secretary of the Interior the duty to "preserve the [national] forests .”
United States v. Robert W. Unser, 165 F.3d 755 (10th Cir. 1999).
· cites it 5× “Unser brings this timely, direct appeal from his conviction for unlawful possession and operation of a motor vehicle within a National Forest Wilderness Area in violation *757 of 16 U.S.C. § 551 and 36 C.F.R. § 261.16 (a).”
United States v. Backlund, 689 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 4× “See 16 U.S.C. § 551 . 4 The act recognizes “prospecting, locating, and developing the mineral resources” of the national forests as “proper and lawful” uses of National Forest System lands, but individuals engaged in those activities, “must comply with the rules and regulations…”
United States v. Richard Stuart Arbo, 691 F.2d 862 (9th Cir. 1982).
· cites it 7× “WALLACE, Circuit Judge: Arbo appeals his misdemeanor conviction for interference with forest officers in the performance of their official duties, a violation of 16 U.S.C. § 551 and 36 C.F.R. § 261.3 (1981).”
United States v. Jereb, 882 F.3d 1325 (10th Cir. 2018).
· cites it 2× “§ 844 (a)), and possession of drug paraphernalia on National Forest System Land (in violation of 16 U.S.C. § 551 and 36 C.F.R. 261.53(e)).”
United States v. New Mexico, 438 U.S. 696 (1978).
· cites it 2× “35 , 16 U. S. C. § 551 (1976 ed.). Despite this rephrasing, Congress remained of the view that wildlife is part of the forest that it intended to "improve and protect" by passage of the 1897 Act, for in its first appropriation to implement the Act it directed that "forest…”
United States v. Lavon R. Kent, 945 F.2d 1441 (9th Cir. 1991).
· cites it 5× “Every year “since time immemorial” Karuk Indians have traveled along a road immediately adjacent to where Kent resides on Sandy Bar Creek to participate in the Karuk ceremony of Pikiyowish (World Renewal). On September 4, 1987, the district court found Kent guilty of…”
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.