U.S. Code » Title 18 » Part PART I— CRIMES › Chapter CHAPTER 93— PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES

18 U.S.C. § 1924

Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).(c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.(Added Pub. L. 103–359, title VIII, § 808(a), Oct. 14, 1994, 108 Stat. 3453; amended Pub. L. 107–273, div. B, title IV, § 4002(d)(1)(C)(i), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1809; Pub. L. 115–118, title II, § 202, Jan. 19, 2018, 132 Stat. 19.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2018—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 115–118 substituted “five years” for “one year”.

2002—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 107–273 substituted “under this title” for “not more than $1,000,”.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1994–2023 · leading case: Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019). · cites it 2× “18 U.S.C. § 1924 (a). Another statute applies to anyone "at least eighteen years of age" who solicits a minor to help avoid detection for certain federal crimes.”
Idema v. Dreamworks, Inc., 162 F. Supp. 2d 1129 (C.D. Cal. 2001). · cites it 2× “§ 201 ), unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material ( 18 U.S.C. § 1924 ), and many others. See SAC ¶ 182.”
Rehaif v. United States, 588 U.S. 225 (2019). · cites it 2× “18 U. S. C. §1924 (a). Another statute applies to anyone “at least eighteen years of age” who solicits a minor to help avoid detection for certain federal crimes.”
Bancroft Global Dev. v. United States, 330 F. Supp. 3d 82 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “¶ 24. Despite these clearances and authorizations, in 2011, the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") and Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") began investigating Bancroft for potential violations of 18 U.”
State v. Moreno, 499 P.3d 198 (Wash. 2021). “However, Moreno reads these cases too broadly, and we reject this reasoning.”
United States v. Keith, 281 F. App'x 542 (6th Cir. 2008). “He qualified for an enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1924 , which increased his guidelines range from 51-63 months’ imprisonment to 121-151 months’ imprisonment.”
Rehaif v. United States (2019). · cites it 2× “18 U. S. C. §1924 (a). Another statute applies to anyone “at least eighteen years of age” who solicits a minor to help avoid detection for certain federal crimes.”
United States v. Decardo Moore (6th Cir. 2023). · cites it 2× “§ 2 , one count of using a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1924 (c), and three counts of aiding and abetting the use of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Robles, 828 F. Supp. 2d 626 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). · cites it 2× “For Count 5, a seven-year term of imprisonment is mandatory and must run consecutively to any other term of custody imposed, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1924 (c)(l)(A)(ii). For Count 6, a 25-year term of imprisonment is mandatory and must run consecutively to any other term of…”
Bancroft Global Dev. v. Koskinen (D.D.C. 2018). “Despite these clearances and authorizations, in 2011, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) began investigating Bancroft for potential violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1924 , concerning the unauthorized removal or retention of…”
Guy v. Walmart Stores East, LP (S.D. Ala. 2020). “As an initial consideration, Walmart argues that costs should be denied because Guy has failed to comply with 18 U.S.C. § 1924 (doc. 121, p. 4). The statute, captioned “Verification of bill of costs”, sets forth as follows: Before any bill of costs is taxed, the party claiming…”
Baranski v. Fifteen Unknown Agents of ATF, 252 F. Supp. 2d 401 (W.D. Ky. 2003). “Even if the Magistrate Judge was mistaken in sealing the affidavit, Defendants were entitled to their reasonable belief that the search warrant was validly issued.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
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.