18 U.S.C. § 1853
Trees cut or injured
Whoever unlawfully cuts, or wantonly injures or destroys any tree growing, standing, or being upon any land of the United States which, in pursuance of law, has been reserved or purchased by the United States for any public use, or upon any Indian reservation, or lands belonging to or occupied by any tribe of Indians under the authority of the United States, or any Indian allotment while the title to the same shall be held in trust by the Government, or while the same shall remain inalienable by the allottee without the consent of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20
cases, 1949–2015 · leading case: United States v. Genschow
United States v. Genschow (2011)
“, a member of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, was convicted of destroying trees on the Ontonagon Reservation in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1853 , and stealing tribal property for his own use in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Lee (2015)
“) More specifically, he contends that his term of supervised release is unlawful because 18 U.S.C. § 1853 (a), which provides that a court “in imposing a sentence to a term of imprisonment for a felony or a misdemeanor, may include as a part of the sentence a requirement that…”
The Ocean Conservancy v. Gutierrez (2005)
“18 U.S.C. § 1853 (a). This broad discretion is tempered by substantive elements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act that require all regulations to be “necessary and appropriate for the conservation and management of the fishery,” and consistent with ten National Standards defined by…”
United States v. Rainbow Family (1988)
“Additionally, 18 U.S.C. § 1853 makes it a substantive misdemeanor unlawfully to cut or injure trees within the jurisdiction of the Forest Service, and 18 U.”
United States v. Allen Waltanen (2009)
“Waltanen, however, contends that if we were to conclude that the district court erred in denying his motion for reduction of sentence and remand this matter to the district court, sentencing relief may be available to him under 18 U.S.C. § 1853 . Citing dicta in United States v.”
Downstate Stone Company, an Illinois Corporation v. United States of America (1981)
“18 U.S.C. § 1853 : Whoever unlawfully cuts, or wantonly injures or destroys any tree growing, standing, or being upon any land of the United States .”
Connecticut v. Daley (1999)
“It is also not arbitrary or capricious to choose to maintain a quota allocation method that considers historical landings patterns.”
United States v. Rainbow Family (1988)
“§ 551 & § 559 (enforcement of Forest Service regulations); 18 U.S.C. § 1853 & § 1863 (criminal penalties for trespass or unlawfully injuring trees on Forest Service property); 36 C.”
Magnolia Motor & Logging Company, a Corporation v. United States (1959)
“§ 1852 16 or 18 U.S.C.A. § 1853 . 17 There is no merit in this contention.”
General Category Scallop Fishermen v. Secretary of United States Department of Commerce (2010)
“” 18 U.S.C. § 1853 (a)(1)(C). The national standards for preparing FMPs and regulations promulgated to implement the same, require that: (1) Conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while *575 achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each…”
Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation v. United States (1999)
“imum Annual Cut; (e) "q” value and “q” ratio; (f) Basal Area; (g) Stocking Area; (h) Tribal Enterprise; (i) Uneven Age Management; (j) Even Age Management; (k) Managed Growth; (/) Net Growth; (m) Gross Growth; (n) Projected Growth; (o) Predicted Growth; (p) Continuous Forest…”
United States v. Johnson (2006)
“§ 1361 and 18 U.S.C. § 1853 in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause; 2) determining the amount of loss; 3) finding that he was a leader in the offenses; and 4) denying his motion for judgment of acquittal.”
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.