Notes of Decisions
United States v. Yannai, 791 F.3d 226 (2d Cir. 2015).
“§ 1589 ; fraud in foreign labor contracting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1351 ; importation of aliens for immoral purposes, in violation of 8 U.”
United States v. Jo Ann Williams, 594 F.2d 86 (5th Cir. 1979).
“18 U.S.C.A. § 1351 of the Bail Reform Act expressly reserves to the court its traditional powers to punish for contempt.”
United States v. Michael Lynn Clark, 412 F.2d 885 (5th Cir. 1969).
“18 U.S.C.A. § 1351 of the Bail Reform Act expressly reserves to the court its traditional powers to punish for contempt.”
United States v. Simpson, 929 F. Supp. 2d 177 (E.D.N.Y. 2013).
“§§ 1326 (a), 1326(b)(2) and 18 U.S.C. §§ 1351 et seq. (Doc. No. 9.) On April 3, 2012, the government moved in limine to exclude evidence regarding Simpson’s anticipated defense that he derived United States citizenship from his mother.”
Carmen v. Health Carousel, LLC, No. 1:20-cv-00313, 2023 WL 5104066 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 9, 2023).
· cites it 5× “§ 1962 predicated on Fraud in Foreign Labor Contracting under 18 U.S.C. § 1351 ; (6) Violations of the RICO Act predicated on Visa Fraud under 18 U.”
United States v. Sandra Bart, 888 F.3d 374 (8th Cir. 2018).
“18 U.S.C. § 1351 . Both Cabrera and Svihel pled guilty to conspiracy to commit fraud in foreign labor contracting.”
Vinayagam v. US Dept Labor-Adminisrative Review Bd., No. 2:18-cv-01206 (D. Nev. Mar. 31, 2023).
· cites it 2× “The Second Cause of Action is against Defendants Eis and Cronous 13 for fraud in foreign labor contracting in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1351 . The Sixth Cause of Action 14 is against Defendant Swapna Pasham for perjury in violation of 18 U.”
Tijerina-Salazar v. Fermin, No. 4:19-cv-00074 (W.D. Tex. May 31, 2022).
· cites it 2× “§ 1324 and 18 U.S.C. §§ 1351 and 1546, “reduc[ed] their labor costs under a series of annual H-2A visa applications .”
United States v. David Phan, No. 18-10099 (9th Cir. June 18, 2019).
“§ 1341 ), fraud in foreign labor contracting ( 18 U.S.C. § 1351 ), and use or possession of * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.”
United States v. Mohammed Islam, No. 18-10096 (9th Cir. Nov. 26, 2019).
“§ 1341 , and three counts of fraud in foreign labor contracting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1351 (a). We affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.”
USA v. Sharmistha Barai, No. 20-10318 (9th Cir. Dec. 20, 2022).
“Kartan was also convicted of fraud in foreign labor contracting in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1351 (a). Barai and Kartan challenge their convictions and sentences.”
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.