18 U.S.C. § 1701
Obstruction of mails generally
Whoever knowingly and willfully obstructs or retards the passage of the mail, or any carrier or conveyance carrying the mail, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 109
cases (24 in the last 5 years), 1950–2026 · leading case: Matthews v. United States, 72 Fed. Cl. 274 (Fed. Cl. 2006).
Matthews v. United States, 72 Fed. Cl. 274 (Fed. Cl. 2006). “§§ 1961-1968 *276 (2000); 3 18 U.S.C. § 1701 (2000) (covering obstruction of mail); the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.”
Lewis v. United States, 518 U.S. 322 (1996). “Petitioner was charged with two counts of obstructing the mail, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1701 . Each count carried a maximum authorized prison sentence of six months.”
United States v. Marshall, 753 F.3d 341 (1st Cir. 2014). “Steven Marshall appeals his conviction for knowingly and willfully obstructing the passage of mails under 18 U.S.C. § 1701 . He challenges the court’s definition of the term “willfully,” claims that evidence of willful obstruction was insufficient, and argues that scheduling…”
United States v. Dennis Roy Choate, 576 F.2d 165 (9th Cir. 1978). “23-24), but that passage concerns whether mail covers violate statutory prohibitions against delaying the mail ( 18 U.S.C. §§ 1701 , 1702 and 1703), a matter not raised here.”
United States v. Austin, 492 F. Supp. 502 (N.D. Ill. 1980). “Sussman *504 that they were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of retardation of the mails, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1701 . Their trial having been held before a Magistrate, jurisdiction over the defendants’ appeal lies in this court pursuant to 18 U.”
Darrell D. McNair v. United States Postal Serv., 768 F.2d 730 (5th Cir. 1985). “§ 1709 , 2 and for *733 “knowingly and willfully obstructing] and retarding] the passage” of the radio through the mail, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1701 . 3 A jury acquitted McNair of all charges.”
Roth v. Farner-Bocken Co., 2003 SD 80 (S.D. 2003). “See 18 USCA § 1701. Additionally, some courts have held that 18 USC § 1708 , which prohibits the theft of mail and provides for a fine or imprisonment of up to five years, applies to conversion of misaddressed mad.”
United States v. Raymond Ernest Ricard, 563 F.2d 45 (2d Cir. 1977). “776) charging appellant with taking two books of money orders from the mail in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1701 . If convicted on such a charge Ricard could have been sentenced to a maximum of a $100 fine or six months imprisonment or both.”
United States v. John Lavin, 567 F.2d 579 (3rd Cir. 1977). “1972), the court stated: No case has been found in which the term “passage of the mail” as used in 18 U.S.C. § 1701 has been defined, construed or interpreted.”
James v. Wilkie, 917 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019). “See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1701 , 1705. It is not unreasonable for a person using the U.”
United States v. Jacob Okoko, 365 F.3d 962 (11th Cir. 2004). “mail in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1701 ; and trafficking in and using one or more unauthorized access devices in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Hiram Stanley Sasser, II, 974 F.2d 1544 (10th Cir. 1992). “However, Schankowski involved the interpretation of a different statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1701 , and the language "knowingly and willfully.”
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.