18 U.S.C. § 1851
Coal depredations
Whoever mines or removes coal of any character, whether anthracite, bituminous, or lignite, from beds or deposits in lands of, or reserved to the United States, with intent wrongfully to appropriate, sell, or dispose of the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
This section shall not interfere with any right or privilege conferred by existing laws of the United States.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: United States v. Du Bo, 186 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 1999).
United States v. Du Bo, 186 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). “Du Bo appeals his conviction for interference with commerce by extortion, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1851 . We have jurisdiction, 28 U.”
Connecticut v. Daley, 53 F. Supp. 2d 147 (D. Conn. 1999). “” 18 U.S.C. § 1851 (a)(1). Connecticut argues that the state-by-state quota system has failed to satisfy National Standard One because the fishing mortality rate, designated as the factor (F), for 1996 fell short of the targeted goal.”
United States v. Allen, 788 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 2015). “§ 1856 (Fires Left Unattended and Unextinguished); id. § 1857 (Fences Destroyed; Livestock Entering); id.”
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Bryson, 933 F. Supp. 2d 125 (D.D.C. 2013). “To the contrary, it is entirely reasonable — and likely exactly what Congress intended, given that it grafted these two directives into the same statutory scheme — that the Fisheries Service can prepare and implement fishery management plans that both: (1) prevent overfishing,…”
Pac. Coast Fed'n of Fishermen's Ass'n v. Sec'y of Com., 494 F. Supp. 626 (N.D. Cal. 1980). “2d 92 (1973), the Court held that the Klamath River Indian Reservation had not been terminated by an 1892 statute, and that the lands remained “Indian Country” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1851 . The Court emphasized that one of the reasons this land had been selected as a…”
United States v. Gomez, 115 F.4th 987 (9th Cir. 2024). “4th at 1231 , we considered whether aiding and abetting Hobbs Act Robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1851 (a) constituted a crime of violence.”
United States v. Emilio Gomez, 302 F. App'x 868 (11th Cir. 2008). “§ 1951 (a) (Count 3); attempt to interfere with commerce by threats or violence (Hobbs Act robbery), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1851 (a) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Count 4); possession of firearms during the commission of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.”
DePew v. Anderson, 104 F. Supp. 2d 879 (S.D. Ohio 2000). “That case was an appeal from a conviction for violating the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1851 . Before his trial, the defendant had unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that it failed to allege that he had acted with the requisite mens rea.”
Mir v. Kirchmeyer (2d Cir. 2021). “§ 1851 , and state law, alleging that dozens of officials in California (the “California defendants”) and New York (the “New York defendants”), along with several of his former employers and colleagues (the “Hospital defendants”), conspired to deprive him of his right to…”
United States v. Paul Loisel (9th Cir. 2022). “Paul Daniel Loisel appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea convictions and aggregate 300-month sentence for five counts of interference with commerce by robbery and one count of discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of…”
Mir v. Zucker (S.D.N.Y. 2020). “Plaintiff additionally purports to assert claims under 18 U.S.C. § 1851 (a statute addressing coal depredations) and states that the defendants have intentionally interfered with interstate commerce.”
Jones v. Connolly (W.D.N.C. 2025). “peonage” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1851 ; and that Defendant benefitted from his peonage in violation of 18 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.