U.S. Code
»
Title 18
» Part PART I— CRIMES › Chapter CHAPTER 93— PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
18 U.S.C. § 1917
Interference with civil service examinations
Whoever, being a member or employee of the United States Office of Personnel Management or an individual in the public service, willfully and corruptly—(1) defeats, deceives, or obstructs an individual in respect of his right of examination according to the rules prescribed by the President under title 5 for the administration of the competitive service and the regulations prescribed by such Office under section 1302(a) of title 5;(2) falsely marks, grades, estimates, or reports on the examination or proper standing of an individual examined;(3) makes a false representation concerning the mark, grade, estimate, or report on the examination or proper standing of an individual examined, or concerning the individual examined; or(4) furnishes to an individual any special or secret information for the purpose of improving or injuring the prospects or chances of an individual examined, or to be examined, being appointed, employed, or promoted;shall, for each offense, be fined under this title not less than $100 or imprisoned not less than ten days nor more than one year, or both.(Added Pub. L. 89–554, § 3(d), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 609; amended Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330010(2), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2143; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, § 601(a)(9), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3498.)The section is rewritten to conform to the style of title 18. The words “a member or employee of the United States Civil Service Commission” are coextensive with and substituted for “Civil Service Commissioner, examiner, copyist, or messenger”.
The references to actions in concert with others to violate this section are omitted in view of the crime of conspiracy contained in chapter 19 of title 18.
In paragraph (1), the words “the rules prescribed by the President under title 5 for the administration of the competitive service and the regulations prescribed by the Commission under section 1302(a) of title 5” are substituted for “any such rules or regulations” to provide the basis of reference.
The words “be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor” are omitted as unnecessary in view of the definitive section 1 of this title. (See reviser’s note under 18 U.S.C. 212, 1964 ed.)
The words “and upon conviction thereof” are omitted as unnecessary because punishment can be imposed only after conviction.
The words “or both” are substituted for “or by both such fine and imprisonment”.
Editorial NotesAmendments1996—Pub. L. 104–294 substituted “fined under this title not less than $100” for “fined not less than $100 nor more than $1,000” in concluding provisions.
1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted “Office of Personnel Management” for “Civil Service Commission” in introductory provisions and “such Office” for “the Commission” in par. (1).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 2008–2023 · leading case:
United States v. Polizzi, 549 F. Supp. 2d 308 (E.D.N.Y 2008).
United States v. Polizzi, 549 F. Supp. 2d 308 (E.D.N.Y 2008).
“§ 1751 (a) Killing the President of the United States, the next in the Life order of succession to the Office of the President, or any person who is acting as the President of the United States; or any person employed in the Executive Office of the President or Office of the…”
Jolley v. Hud (Fed. Cir. 2023).
· cites it 3× “§ 3317 (a) by having a final applicant list that only included two can- didates, and argued that HUD violated 18 U.S.C. § 1917 (2) by falsely reporting on the examination of the selected can- didate when reviewing her resumé.”
Jolley v. Hud (Fed. Cir. 2023).
· cites it 3× “§ 3317 (a) by having a final applicant list that only included two can- didates, and argued that HUD violated 18 U.S.C. § 1917 (2) by falsely reporting on the examination of the selected can- didate when reviewing her resumé.”
William Jolley v. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev. (MSPB 2022).
“5 For the same reason, we reject the appellant’s claims on review that the agency committed a criminal act in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1917 (2) when it “falsely . .”
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.