18 U.S.C. § 1506
Theft or alteration of record or process; false bail
Whoever feloniously steals, takes away, alters, falsifies, or otherwise avoids any record, writ, process, or other proceeding, in any court of the United States, whereby any judgment is reversed, made void, or does not take effect; or
Whoever acknowledges, or procures to be acknowledged in any such court, any recognizance, bail, or judgment, in the name of any other person not privy or consenting to the same—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35
cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1970–2026 · leading case: Shahin v. Darling, 606 F. Supp. 2d 525 (D. Del. 2009).
Shahin v. Darling, 606 F. Supp. 2d 525 (D. Del. 2009). “INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Nina Shahin (“plaintiff’) filed this lawsuit on May 20, 2008, against members of the Delaware judiciary, two law firms, and two court reporters alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 1 obstruction of justice…”
Treece v. United States, 96 Fed. Cl. 226 (Fed. Cl. 2010). “17, 2006) (finding that the Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction over proceedings arising under 18 U.S.C. § 1506 ) (citing Maracalin v. United States, 52 Fed.”
Curro v. Watson, 884 F. Supp. 708 (E.D.N.Y 1995). “The plaintiff argues, however, that 18 U.S.C. § 1506 provides the relevant standard of conduct, and therefore overcomes the defendants’ qualified immunity defense.”
Carl Stern v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 737 F.2d 84 (D.C. Cir. 1984). “2d at 1252-53 (Exemption 7(C) analysis applied to FOIA request concerning an FBI investigation of a federal judge accused of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1506 (obstructing justice by altering court records)).”
Gonzalez v. Otero, 172 F. Supp. 3d 477 (D.P.R. 2016). “§ 1001 ); Obstruction of Justice ( 18 U.S.C. § 1506 ), and Theft of Public Property ( 18 U.”
Maracalin v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 736 (Fed. Cl. 2002). “ised jurisdiction over his plea agreement in violation of the Tucker Act; (2) the United States Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and local law enforcement agents, operating under the authority of defective warrants, violated plaintiffs due process rights by subjecting him to an…”
United States v. Thomas Robertson, 86 F.4th 355 (D.C. Cir. 2023). “For example, 18 U.S.C. § 1506 sets forth a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment for feloniously stealing a record or other process used in a court proceeding.”
United States v. Guerrero, 28 M.J. 223 (1989). “…for protection particular persons ( 18 USC §§ 1501 , 1502, 1503, 1504, 1512, 1513, 1514); particular things ( 18 USC §§ 1506 and 1509); particular proceedings ( 18 USC §§ 1505 , 1508, 1510, 1511, 1516); and the general process of justice itself ( 18 USC §§ 1503 and…”
United States v. Bernard Kane & Anthony Grosso, Bernard Kane, 433 F.2d 337 (3rd Cir. 1970). “OPINION OF THE COURT PER CURIAM: Defendant Kane was convicted by a jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on two counts of an indictment 1 2 charg-ing that the defendant caused false bail to be entered and acknowledged in violation of…”
Hamm v. Rendell, 166 F. App'x 599 (3rd Cir. 2006). “Finally, the Magistrate Judge summarily rejected Hamm’s contention that the defendants’ actions violate 18 U.S.C. §§ 1506 , 1701 et seq., and 1961 et seq.”
United States v. Kane, 319 F. Supp. 527 (E.D. Pa. 1970). “1 18 U.S. C.A. § 1506. Motions for new trial, judgment of acquittal and in arrest of judgment were timely filed on April 27, 1970.”
Martin-Trigona v. Acton Corp., 600 F. Supp. 1193 (D.D.C. 1984). “§ 1503 and 18 U.S.C. § 1506 , and claims violation of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.”
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.