Whoever falsely makes, forges, counterfeits, mutilates, or alters any passport or instrument purporting to be a passport, with intent that the same may be used; or
Whoever willfully and knowingly uses, or attempts to use, or furnishes to another for use any such false, forged, counterfeited, mutilated, or altered passport or instrument purporting to be a passport, or any passport validly issued which has become void by the occurrence of any condition therein prescribed invalidating the same—
Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 25 years (if the offense was committed to facilitate an act of international terrorism (as defined in section 2331 of this title)), 20 years (if the offense was committed to facilitate a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 929(a) of this title)), 10 years (in the case of the first or second such offense, if the offense was not committed to facilitate such an act of international terrorism or a drug trafficking crime), or 15 years (in the case of any other offense), or both.
Notes of Decisions
Jun Ying Wang v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney Gen. of the United States, 445 F.3d 993 (7th Cir. 2006).
· cites it 2× “In May 2001 Wang, Guo, and Chu were charged together in a thirty-two count indictment with violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 1543 (prohibiting forgery or false use of a passport), 1546(a) (prohibiting use of forged or counterfeit nonimmigrant visas), 1028(a)(6) (prohibiting knowingly…”
Yong Wong Park v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 472 F.3d 66 (3rd Cir. 2006).
· cites it 2× “For instance, Chapter 75 criminalizes the counterfeiting of a passport ( 18 U.S.C. § 1543 ); Chapter 83 criminalizes the counterfeiting of keys suited to any lock adopted by the Post *72 Office ( 18 U.”
United States v. Okulaja, 21 F.4th 338 (5th Cir. 2021).
· cites it 2× “Count 1 alleged that, on or about June 6, 2016, Okulaja used the Millet Passport to open the Millet IBC account, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1543 (False Use of a Passport).”
United States v. Kikumura, Yu, 918 F.2d 1084 (3rd Cir. 1990).
“§ 5861(i); and three counts charging passport and visa offenses, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 1543 , 1544, 1546(a). . Unless otherwise noted, all discussions of, and citations to, sentencing guidelines refer to the October 1988 Guidelines.”
United States v. Ricardo Casimiro Rodriguez, 356 F.3d 254 (2d Cir. 2004).
“§ 1326 , and of passport and visa fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1543 and 1546, respectively, and sentencing him principally to 63 months’ imprisonment.”
Lillian J. Del Carmen Franco-De Jerez v. Filomeno Burgos, 876 F.2d 1038 (1st Cir. 1989).
· cites it 2× “” It is a crime to “alter” a passport, or to “use” or furnish “to anoth *1041 er for use,” an altered passport, see 18 U.S.C. § 1543 , or to alter any “document prescribed by statute .”
United States v. Masao Fujii, A/K/A Yasuo Tamura, 301 F.3d 535 (7th Cir. 2002).
“§ 1324 (a)(l)(A)(iv) (“Count 2”); and finally, of knowingly using a counterfeit passport, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1543 (“Count 3”). The district court sentenced Fujii to 36 months of imprisonment.”
United States v. Crounsset, 403 F. Supp. 2d 475 (E.D. Va. 2005).
· cites it 2× “Additionally, defendant was found guilty on Count Three of the indictment, as the government established beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant had used an altered passport in an attempt to gain entry into the United States on July 11, 2005, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1543 .…”
United States v. Maximo E. Tejada-Beltran, Alias, Etc., 50 F.3d 105 (1st Cir. 1995).
“§ 1324 (a)(1)(D); the next five counts charged appellant with furnishing altered passports to specific aliens to be used to gain admittance into the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1543 ; and the remaining seven counts charged appellant with bribery of a public…”
United States v. Forbes, 16 F.3d 1294 (1st Cir. 1994).
“A federal grand jury in the District of Puerto Rico subsequently returned a two count indictment against Forbes, charging him with unlawfully using an altered passport, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1543 , and with unlawfully attempting to reenter the United States after having…”
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.