Whoever counterfeits or colorably imitates any Government trade mark used or devised by the Indian Arts and Crafts Board in the Department of the Interior as provided in section 305a of Title 25, or, except as authorized by the Board, affixes any such Government trade mark, or knowingly, willfully, and corruptly affixes any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation thereof upon any products, or to any labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, or receptacles intended to be used upon or in connection with the sale of such products; or
Whoever knowingly makes any false statement for the purpose of obtaining the use of any such Government trade mark—
Shall (1) in the case of a first violation, if an individual, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both, and, if a person other than an individual, be fined not more than $1,000,000; and (2) in the case of subsequent violations, if an individual, be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than fifteen years, or both, and, if a person other than an individual, be fined not more than $5,000,000; and (3) shall be enjoined from further carrying on the act or acts complained of.
Notes of Decisions
United States v. Wells, 519 U.S. 482 (1997).
· cites it 2× “§ 1027 (penalizing false statement in documents required by [Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974]); 18 U. S. C. § 1158 (penalizing false statement to secure Indian Arts & Crafts Board trademark); 18 U.”
Hart v. United States, 630 F.3d 1085 (8th Cir. 2011).
“Each count alleged sexual abuse of a minor in Indian country, in violation of *1087 18 U.S.C. §§ 1158 , 2243(a) and 2246(2)(A).”
United States v. Michael E. Gaudin, 28 F.3d 943 (9th Cir. 1994).
“§ 1027 (penalizing false statement in documents required by ERISA); 18 U.S.C. § 1158 (penalizing false statement to secure Indian Arts & Crafts Board trademark); 18 U.”
United States v. Cyril S. Plumman, Also Known as Steve Plumman, 409 F.3d 919 (8th Cir. 2005).
“The government indicted Cyril Steve Plumman (Plumman), a Native American residing within the territory of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, with seven counts of aggravated sexual abuse of two minor females and with ten additional counts of sexual abuse of two minor females, in…”
United States v. Mei-Fen Chen, 913 F.2d 183 (5th Cir. 1990).
“§ 1002 (possession of false papers to defraud United States); 18 U.S.C. § 1158 (counterfeiting Indian Arts and Crafts Board trademark); 18 U.”
United States v. Errol D., Jr., a Juv., 292 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2002).
“2 18 U.S.C. § 1158 (emphasis added). The wording “Indian or other person” indicates more than just the erasure of that exception in the General Crimes Act, by withdrawing the entire universe of those fourteen crimes from the ambit of the General Crimes Act.”
United States v. Stewart Boyles, 57 F.3d 535 (7th Cir. 1995).
“18 U.S.C. § 1158 . After a jury trial, the court received and accepted the jury’s verdict and found the defendant Boyles guilty of all five counts set forth in the indictment, and sentenced him to 211 months imprisonment (17 years and 7 months), five years supervised release,…”
United States v. Charles Matthew Yates, 22 F.3d 981 (10th Cir. 1994).
“However, the hearing was not held because, on March 4, 1992, Yates pleaded guilty to an information charging the lesser offense of abusive sexual contact with the five-year-old child in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1158 , 2244(a)(1), and 2245(B).”
United States v. Robert Keith, 605 F.2d 462 (9th Cir. 1979).
“HUG, Circuit Judge: Appellant Robert Keith, a Navajo Indian, was indicted on the charge of involuntary manslaughter within the confines of the Navajo Indian Reservation, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1158 and 1112. Before trial, Keith moved to dismiss the indictment for failure…”
United States v. Wright, 540 F.3d 833 (8th Cir. 2008).
“Wright of seven counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1158 and 2241(c). The district court 1 sentenced Wright to concurrent life terms for each count and ordered him to pay a fíne of $25,000.”
United States v. Geshik-O-Binese Martin, 777 F.3d 984 (8th Cir. 2015).
“A jury convicted Geshik-O-Binese Martin and Edward Robinson of robbing and murdering Craig Roy and Darla Beaulieu on the Red Lake Indian Reservation in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1158 . David Martin was acquitted of the murder charges but also convicted of robbery under § 1153.”
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.