18 U.S.C. § 1036

Entry by false pretenses to any real property, vessel, or aircraft of the United States or secure area of any airport or seaport

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Whoever, by any fraud or false pretense, enters or attempts to enter—(1) any real property belonging in whole or in part to, or leased by, the United States;(2) any vessel or aircraft belonging in whole or in part to, or leased by, the United States;(3) any secure or restricted area of any seaport, designated as secure in an approved security plan, as required under section 70103 of title 46, United States Code, and the rules and regulations promulgated under that section; or(4) any secure area of any airport,shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section.(b) The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) of this section is—(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if the offense is committed with the intent to commit a felony; or(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or both, in any other case.(c) As used in this section—(1) the term “secure area” means an area access to which is restricted by the airport authority, captain of the seaport, or a public agency; and(2) the term “airport” has the meaning given such term in section 47102 of title 49.(Added Pub. L. 106–547, § 2(a), Dec. 19, 2000, 114 Stat. 2738; amended Pub. L. 109–177, title III, § 302(a), Mar. 9, 2006, 120 Stat. 233.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2006—Pub. L. 109–177, § 302(a)(4), substituted “any airport or seaport” for “any airport” in section catchline.

Subsec. (a)(3), (4). Pub. L. 109–177, § 302(a)(1), added par. (3) and redesignated former par. (3) as (4).

Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 109–177, § 302(a)(2), substituted “10 years” for “5 years”.

Subsec. (c)(1). Pub. L. 109–177, § 302(a)(3), inserted “, captain of the seaport,” after “airport authority”.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 2010–2020 · leading case: Democracy Partners v. Proj. Veritas Action Fund, 285 F. Supp. 3d 109 (D.C. Cir. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Democracy Partners v. Proj. Veritas Action Fund, 285 F. Supp. 3d 109 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “) Their tactics and other actions have led to multiple civil lawsuits and a criminal judgment against O'Keefe for entry by false pretenses in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1036 (a)(1), (2). See Wentz v.”

United States v. Nedelcu (Silviu), 519 F. App'x 980 (10th Cir. 2013). · cites it 4× “These brothers, Silviu Lucretiu Nedelcu (“Silviu”) and Olimpiu Constantine Nedel-cu (“Olimpiu”), both pled guilty, in late 2005 and early 2006, to entering a secure area of an airport by fraudulent means, and aiding and abetting, 1 in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1036 (a), and 18…”

Parris v. Whitaker (2d Cir. 2018). · cites it 3× “In 2003, he was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1036 of entering or attempting to enter 2 the secure area of an airport by fraud or false pretenses, specifically, lying about his robbery conviction, and was sentenced to one year of probation.”

United States v. James Murphy, 392 F. App'x 528 (9th Cir. 2010). “Finally, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, sufficient evidence supports defendant’s conviction on count nine.”

Democracy Partners, LLC v. Proj. Veritas Action Fund (D.D.C. 2018). “) Their tactics and other actions have led to multiple civil lawsuits and a criminal judgment against O’Keefe for entry by false pretenses in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1036 (a)(1), (2). See Wentz v.”

Democracy Partners, LLC v. Proj. Veritas Action Fund (D.D.C. 2020). “May 27, 2010) (convicted of entry by false pretenses in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1036 (a)(1), (2)). 5 A more detailed description of Project Veritas and the chain of events leading up to Democracy Partners offering Maass an internship can be found in this Court’s prior opinion.”

Medina v. United States (D. Haw. 2019). “The Superseding Indictment added Count 3, to the already charged Counts 1 and 2, as follows: Count 3: Knowingly attempted to enter a secure area of an airport by fraud and false pretense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1036 (a)(4). (Superseding Indictment at pp.”

United States v. Nedelcu (Olimpiu), 441 F. App'x 614 (10th Cir. 2011). “Defendants, appearing pro se, appeal the denial of their motions to seal or expunge the record of a 2005 case in which they were both convicted of entering an aircraft or aircraft area by fraudulent means in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1036 (a). In these motions, Defendants…”

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.