18 U.S.C. § 1706
Injury to mail bags
Whoever tears, cuts, or otherwise injures any mail bag, pouch, or other thing used or designed for use in the conveyance of the mail, or draws or breaks any staple or loosens any part of any lock, chain, or strap attached thereto, with intent to rob or steal any such mail, or to render the same insecure, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases, 1958–2006 · leading case: United States v. McCulley, 673 F.2d 346 (11th Cir. 1982).
United States v. McCulley, 673 F.2d 346 (11th Cir. 1982). “§ 2 for aiding and abetting the above acts as well as aiding and abetting the breaking of seals and the loosening of straps on mail pouches with the intent to steal mail in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1706 . The appellants claim that the district court made several errors which…”
United States v. Larita Anne Bolzer, United States of Am. v. William Bolzer, United States of Am. v. Jerry Thompson, 556 F.2d 948 (9th Cir. 1977). “CARTER, Circuit Judge: This is an appeal by three defendants of their convictions by a jury for armed mail robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1706 and 2114, and for conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Daniel Reid & Theodore E. Thomas, Jr., 517 F.2d 953 (2d Cir. 1975). “§§ 1705 , 1708, “mail bags,” 18 U.S.C. § 1706 , “property used by the Post Office Department,” 18 U.”
United States v. Crum, 38 M.J. 663 (1993). “Specification 1 of Charge II is also analogous to 18 U.S.C. § 1706—Injury to mail bags. That statute prohibits loosening any part of a mail bag to render it insecure.”
United States v. Hogsett, 8 C.M.A. 681 (1958). “The latter section is titled “VIOLATIONS AND OFFENSES AGAINST THE MAILS” and paragraph 82 sets out the language of 18 USC § 1706 which prohibits injury to mail bags.”
John Wesley Riadon, Jr. v. United States, 274 F.2d 304 (6th Cir. 1960). “In spite of the clear wording of the jeopardy prohibition of the Fifth Amendment, no case has been cited to us, and none has been found upon independent investigation, that specifically holds that a plea of guilty does, or does not per se, put an accused person in jeopardy, nor…”
United States v. Chapman, 179 F. Supp. 447 (E.D.N.Y 1959). “Title 18 U.S.C. § 1706 . Count Four. On or about the 31st day of March, 1959, at Brooklyn, New York, within the Eastern District of New York, the defendant, Eddie Chapman, did steal, take and abstract from and out of an authorized depository for mail matter, a letter addressed…”
United States v. Harding, 237 F. Supp. 317 (D. Conn. 1964). “Defendant Harding, having waived a jury, was tried to the Court upon three counts 1 of an indictment charging him and co-defendant Taubl, 2 in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1706 , with cutting open two mail pouches and a mail sack, and upon one count charging Harding and Taubl, in…”
Commonwealth v. Piersall, 853 N.E.2d 210 (Mass. App. Ct. 2006). “1088 , 1124 (current version at 18 U.S.C. § 1706 [2000]). Nancy’s testimony on direct examination seemed to indicate that she received the eighteen e-mails electronically and had printed them out.”
Berges v. United States, 37 F. Supp. 2d 116 (D.P.R. 1999). “§ 924 (c)(1); (3) causing injury to mail bags in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1706 (d); and (4) obstructing correspondence in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Cuddeback, 192 F. Supp. 860 (S.D.N.Y. 1961). “1151 , where the Supreme Court, in construing the predecessor of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1706 , which in part provided that “[w]hoever shall tear, cut, or otherwise injure any mail bag, pouch, or other thing designed for use in the conveyance of the mail * * * with intent to rob or steal…”
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.