Whoever willfully or maliciously injures or destroys any of the works, property, or material of any radio, telegraph, telephone or cable, line, station, or system, or other means of communication, operated or controlled by the United States, or used or intended to be used for military or civil defense functions of the United States, whether constructed or in process of construction, or willfully or maliciously interferes in any way with the working or use of any such line, or system, or willfully or maliciously obstructs, hinders, or delays the transmission of any communication over any such line, or system, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
In the case of any works, property, or material, not operated or controlled by the United States, this section shall not apply to any lawful strike activity, or other lawful concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection which do not injure or destroy any line or system used or intended to be used for the military or civil defense functions of the United States.
Notes of Decisions
Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187 (1959).
· cites it 4× “§ 371 [2] by conspiring *189 to destroy, contrary to 18 U. S. C. § 1362 , [3] "certain works, property and material known as coaxial repeater stations and micro-wave towers .”
United States v. Gerritsen, 571 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 2× “On May 17, 2005, Gerritsen was charged in a six-count indictment with: (1) one count of malicious interference with a military radio system under 18 U.S.C. § 1362 (providing a maximum sentence of ten years); (2) two counts of malicious interference with a licensed or authorized…”
United States v. Randy Graham, 275 F.3d 490 (6th Cir. 2001).
“§ 1114 (killing or attempting to kill an officer or employee of the United States while that person is engaged in performing or on account of the performance of official duties); (4) 18 U.S.C. § 1362 (willfully or maliciously injuring or destroying or attempting to destroy…”
Cordiano v. Metacon Gun Club, Inc., 575 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2009).
“” 18 U.S.C. § 1362 (7). The EPA and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) have issued substantially equivalent regulations defining “waters of the United States.”
United States v. Frank Hayes, Dorothy Foley Hayes & Alice Baldwin, 589 F.2d 811 (5th Cir. 1979).
“He was subsequently prosecuted by the federal government for conspiring to destroy communications facilities operated or controlled by the United States, 18 U.S.C. § 1362 (1964). Bartkus involved a defendant who was convicted of armed robbery under Illinois law, after having…”
United States v. Denny Turpin, United States of Am. v. Jonathan Smith, 65 F.3d 1207 (4th Cir. 1995).
· cites it 3× “They were convicted for violation of and conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1362 , which prohibits willful destruction of a communication facility used or intended to be used for military or civil defense functions of the United States.”
United States v. McElhaney, 469 F.3d 382 (5th Cir. 2006).
“2 Title 18 U.S.C. § 1362 (a)(2) provides that “[flailure of the defendant to move for dismissal prior to trial or entry of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere shall constitute a waiver of the right to dismissal under [the Speedy Trial Act].”
Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians v. Minnesota, 853 F. Supp. 1118 (D. Minnesota 1994).
“§ 1983 on the theory that the State’s enforcement of its conservation laws has prevented or interfered with the exercise of rights under the 1837 Treaty in violation of that treaty, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution,…”
Boultinghouse v. Lappin, 816 F. Supp. 2d 107 (D.D.C. 2011).
“At the same meeting, however, it was determined that plaintiff was not eligible for early release under 18 U.S.C. § 1362 (e), id., which gives the BOP discretion to reduce an inmate’s sentence by up to twelve months if the inmate is a nonviolent offender and successfully…”
Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians v. Minnesota, 861 F. Supp. 784 (D. Minnesota 1994).
“§ 1983 action for interference with the exercise of rights under the 1837 treaty, due process rights, and the Supremacy Clause); and 18 U.S.C. § 1362 (action brought by an Indian band with a governing body duly recognized by the Secretary of the Interior arising under the…”
United States v. Frumento, 563 F.2d 1083 (3rd Cir. 1977).
“Petitioners in that case had been indicted and convicted in an Illinois state court for violating a state statute making it a crime to injure or destroy the property of another and were thereafter indicted and convicted in the federal court for conspiracy, in violation of a…”
Asher v. State, 776 S.W.2d 816 (Ark. 1989).
“See 18 U.S.C. § 1362 (1982) which provides for mandatory dismissal but gives the judge the power to dismiss without prejudice after considering certain factors, including seriousness of the offense and the effect of dismissal on the administration of justice.”
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.