18 U.S.C. § 1915
Compromise of customs liabilities
Whoever, being an officer of the United States, without lawful authority compromises or abates or attempts to compromise or abate any claim of the United States arising under the customs laws for any fine, penalty or forfeiture, or in any manner relieves or attempts to relieve any person, vessel, vehicle, merchandise or baggage therefrom, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 174
cases (113 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case: Irma Ovalles v. United States, 861 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2017).
Irma Ovalles v. United States, 861 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2017). “Charges and Plea Agreement In 2010, Ovalles was charged by information with Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1915 and 2 (Count One), three counts of carjacking, in violation of 18 U.”
Punaofo Tilei v. W. McGuinness, 642 F. App'x 719 (9th Cir. 2016). “1992), and the denial of a motion for the appointment of counsel pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1915 (e), see Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.”
Henry Gibbs, Jr. v. Ms. Marcia Roman, Sci Somerset Librarian, United States of Am., Intervenor, 116 F.3d 83 (3rd Cir. 1997). “18U.S.C. § 1915(g) provides: In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment if the prisoner has, on 3 or more occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the…”
Boyce v. Ashcroft, 251 F.3d 911 (10th Cir. 2001). “On appeal, because the petitioner sought to proceed in forma pauperis, we first addressed whether the proceeding was a civil action and thus subject to the filing fee obligations of 18 U.S.C. § 1915 . Relying on United States v.”
Sean Woodson v. Brian Payton, 503 F. App'x 110 (3rd Cir. 2012). “In 2010, Woodson filed a nearly identical complaint against Payton.”
In Re Kissi, 652 F.3d 39 (D.C. Cir. 2011). “Accordingly, we hold that Kissi’s mandamus petitions are subject to the PLRA’s “three strikes” provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1915 (g), and, consequently, he is barred from proceeding in forma pauper- *42 is.”
Acker v. Cso Chevira, 934 P.2d 816 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997). “§ 1915 mandates sua sponte Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals in certain instances, but we find those principles to provide good guidance for informa pauperis statutes such as presently exist in Arizona. We do not hold that an Arizona trial court can never order a sua sponte Rule…”
Williams v. Lomen, 81 F. App'x 871 (7th Cir. 2003). “These appeals have earned Williams two strikes under 18 U.S.C. § 1915 (g). Williams has already incurred at least two strikes under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act, see Williams v.”
Comm. to Preserve Am. Color Television v. United States, 527 F. Supp. 341 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1981). “In 1948, section 616 was repealed; however, the substance of that provision is contained in 18 U.S.C. § 1915 , 62 Stat. 793 . The final amendment to section 617 occurred in *345 1970, substituting a reference to a customs officer for a reference to a collector.”
Franklin v. City of Chicago Police Dep't, 175 F. App'x 740 (7th Cir. 2005). “2003), but the court may, in its discretion, assign an attorney to someone who cannot afford counsel, 18 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(1). The district court here did not abuse its discretion in declining to appoint counsel for Franklin because it correctly determined that Franklin could…”
Lowe v. Kaplan, 308 F. App'x 993 (7th Cir. 2009). “Horn, and the warden’s staff, see 18 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2), and it later granted summary judgment to Dr.”
United States v. Tyrone I. Marshall, 510 F.2d 792 (D.C. Cir. 1975). “18 U.S.C. § 1915 (1970). 9 . Furthermore, differing treatment for co-defendants is a matter of prosecutorial discretion not reviewable in these circumstances by the Court of Appeals.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) — 1 case
James R. Alston v. City of Surprise, et al. (D. Ariz. 2026).
— 18 U.S.C. § 1915(g) — 1 case
Henry Gibbs, Jr. v. Ms. Marcia Roman, Sci Somerset Librarian, United States of Am., Intervenor, 116 F.3d 83 (3rd Cir. 1997). “18U.S.C. § 1915(g) provides: In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment if the prisoner has, on 3 or more occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the…”
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.