Whoever steals, purloins, embezzles, or obtains by false pretense any key suited to any lock adopted by the Post Office Department or the Postal Service and in use on any of the mails or bags thereof, or any key to any lock box, lock drawer, or other authorized receptacle for the deposit or delivery of mail matter; or
Whoever knowingly and unlawfully makes, forges, or counterfeits any such key, or possesses any such mail lock or key with the intent unlawfully or improperly to use, sell, or otherwise dispose of the same, or to cause the same to be unlawfully or improperly used, sold, or otherwise disposed of; or
Whoever, being engaged as a contractor or otherwise in the manufacture of any such mail lock or key, delivers any finished or unfinished lock or the interior part thereof, or key, used or designed for use by the department, to any person not duly authorized under the hand of the Postmaster General and the seal of the Post Office Department or the Postal Service, to receive the same, unless the person receiving it is the contractor for furnishing the same or engaged in the manufacture thereof in the manner authorized by the contract, or the agent of such manufacturer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Notes of Decisions
United States v. Clarence Kenneth Gorman, 314 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2002).
· cites it 4× “11(a)(2), to possession of a counterfeit postal key, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1704 . Gorman now appeals the two issues he reserved for review: the District Court’s denial of his motion to suppress certain evidence and the denial of his motion to dismiss based on the Speedy…”
Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991).
· cites it 2× “§ 707 (b), and purloining a "key suited to any lock adopted by the Post Office Department" with a prison term of up to 10 years, 18 U. S. C. § 1704 . Perhaps both we and they would be right, but the point is that there are no textual or historical standards for saying so.”
United States v. Randy Lee Ewain, 88 F.3d 689 (9th Cir. 1996).
· cites it 3× “Ewain argues that the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury that conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1704 requires that the illegally procured keys or locks be “in use” by the Postal Service.”
United States v. Darlene Marie Beckner, 983 F.2d 1380 (6th Cir. 1993).
· cites it 2× “§ 1708 , one count of possession of keys to steal mail under 18 U.S.C. § 1704 , and one count of illegal possession of agricultural coupons under 7 U.”
Yong Wong Park v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 472 F.3d 66 (3rd Cir. 2006).
“§ 1543 ); Chapter 83 criminalizes the counterfeiting of keys suited to any lock adopted by the Post *72 Office ( 18 U.S.C. § 1704 ); and, of particular relevance here, Chapter 113 criminalizes trafficking in counterfeit goods or services ( 18 U.”
United States v. Pira, 535 F.3d 724 (7th Cir. 2008).
“Postal Service with intent to use, sell, or otherwise dispose of it and cause it to be used, sold, or otherwise disposed of unlawfully and improperly, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1704 . *726 Pira proceeded to trial on these charges, but on the second day of trial he changed his…”
United States v. Matthew Jensen, 705 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2013).
· cites it 2× “In 2009, Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful possession of a mail key in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1704 . That offense carried a maximum prison term of ten years.”
Hall v. Henderson, 672 A.2d 1047 (D.C. 1996).
“On August 31, 1982, before his sentencing, Hall was convicted in federal district court of possession of a postal service key •with intent to use, 18 U.S.C. § 1704 (1994), and unlawful and knowing possession of stolen mail matter, id.”
Rodriguez-valencia v. Holder, 652 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2011).
“§ 502 ; and Post Office keys, 18 U.S.C. § 1704 . Indeed, over a decade before Congress enacted INA § 101(a)(43)(R), 8 U.”
United States v. Margaret Sailer, 552 F.2d 213 (8th Cir. 1977).
“Margaret Sailer appeals from her conviction of obtaining a post office box key by false pretenses, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1704 , and stealing a letter from the box, in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Bausch & Lomb Optical Co., 45 F. Supp. 387 (S.D.N.Y. 1942).
“In referring to the Colgate case we said: ‘The court below misapprehended the meaning and effect of the opinion and judgment in that cause.”
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.