18 U.S.C. § 1202
Ransom money
Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 408c–1 (June 22, 1932, ch. 271, § 4, as added Jan. 24, 1936, ch. 29, 49 Stat. 1099).
Words “in the penitentiary” after “imprisoned” were omitted in view of section 4082 of this title committing prisoners to the custody of the Attorney General. (See reviser’s note under section 1 of this title.)
Minor changes were made in phraseology.
1994—Pub. L. 103–322, § 320601(b), designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) and (c).
Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–322, § 330016(1)(L), substituted “fined under this title” for “fined not more than $10,000”.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 358
cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1954–2026 · leading case: United States v. Victor Stitt
United States v. Victor Stitt (2017)
“at 581 (emphasis added) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 1202 (c)(9) (1984)). Congress’s choice of “building” necessarily excluded anything movable.”
United States v. Jamaal Adeem Atif Singletary, A/K/A Jamal Singletary A/K/A Curtis Singletary Jamaal Singletary (2001)
“” At the time the Supreme Court established what remains the governing jurisprudence on federalization of gun possession, the felon-in-possession statute, then codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1202 (a), was phrased differently.”
Daniel Binderup v. Attorney General United States (2016)
“Sitting en banc, we concluded that Congress’s denial of funds to process § 925(c) applications stripped the federal district courts of jurisdiction to review the Justice Department’s refusal to act on those 199 Lewis v.”
Florida Ex Rel. Attorney General v. United States Department of Health & Human Services (2011)
“at 1631 (emphasis added) (quoting former 18 U.S.C. § 1202 (a)). The Lopez Court stated that "[u]nlike the statute in Bass , § 922(q) has no express jurisdictional element which might limit its reach to a discrete set of firearm possessions that additionally have an explicit…”
United States v. Shane Buchmeier (2001)
“1975) (finding that under 18 U.S.C. § 1202 (a), “absent a showing that two firearms were stored or acquired at different times or places, there is only one offense, not two”).”
United States v. Jorge Rodriguez (2013)
“at 581 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 1202 (c)(9) (repealed 1986)).”
Ex Parte Renier (1987)
“" In spite of language from the United States Supreme Court that "the fact of a felony conviction imposes a firearm disability [for purposes of federal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1202 ] until the conviction is vacated.”
Custis v. United States (1994)
“2d 909, 914-915 (CA9 1987) (interpreting 18 U. S. C. § 1202 (a)(1) (1982 ed.), the predecessor of § 924(e)); United States v.”
State v. Orr (1985)
“18 USC § 1202 (a)(1) (1976). The Act prohibits a convicted felon from receiving, possessing, or transporting any firearm.”
Commonwealth v. Berryman (1994)
“[19] Batchelder filed a timely appeal to United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, alleging that the existence of 18 U.S.C.S. § 1202 (a), which covers the identical conduct proscribed by section 922(h), but which authorizes a maximum sentence of two years…”
United States v. Gary E. Chesney (1996)
“We agree with these courts that the presence of the jurisdictional element defeats Chesney’s facial challenge to § 922(g)(1), particularly in light of the Lopez Court’s approval of former 18 U.S.C. § 1202 (a), 1 as interpreted in Unit *569 ed States v.”
Luna Torres v. Lynch (2016)
“("an offense described in" 18 U.S.C. § 1202 (b), which criminalizes possessing, receiving, or transmitting proceeds of a kidnapping); § 1101(a)(43)(I) ("an offense described in" 18 U.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 1202(a) — 6 cases
Florida Ex Rel. Attorney General v. United States Department of Health & Human Services (2011)
“at 1631 (emphasis added) (quoting former 18 U.S.C. § 1202 (a)). The Lopez Court stated that "[u]nlike the statute in Bass , § 922(q) has no express jurisdictional element which might limit its reach to a discrete set of firearm possessions that additionally have an explicit…”
United States v. Campbell (1995)
United States v. Fryer (1975)
— 18 U.S.C. § 1202(a)(1) — 2 cases
Custis v. United States (1994)
“2d 909, 914-915 (CA9 1987) (interpreting 18 U. S. C. § 1202 (a)(1) (1982 ed.), the predecessor of § 924(e)); United States v.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 1202(b) — 1 case
United States v. Edgar Lemus (2024)
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.