18 U.S.C. § 1952A
Renumbered § 1958]
[renumbered]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1984–2024 · leading case: Sullivan v. State, 622 S.E.2d 823 (Ga. 2005).
Sullivan v. State, 622 S.E.2d 823 (Ga. 2005). “Sullivan was previously tried and acquitted in 1992 in Federal district court on charges that he violated 18 USC § 1952A (use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder-for-hire).”
United States v. Paul Luskin, 926 F.2d 372 (4th Cir. 1991). “18 U.S.C. § 1952A. The sentence was ten years, to run consecutive to Count I.”
United States v. John Newark West, 898 F.2d 1493 (11th Cir. 1990). “HILL, Senior Circuit Judge: John Newark West appeals from a conviction and sentence for use of an interstate commerce facility (a telephone) for solicitation of murder in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952A. In particular, he appeals both evidentiary rulings and jury instructions…”
United States v. Drury, 344 F.3d 1089 (11th Cir. 2003). “§ 1952 (1961), amended by 18 U.S.C. § 1952A (1984). The Travel Act federalized the prosecution of organized crime and racketeering offenses that cross state borders.”
United States v. Robert Marc Edelman, 873 F.2d 791 (5th Cir. 1989). “PER CURIAM: Robert Marc Edelman appeals his convictions for conspiracy to use, and aiding and abetting another in the use of, interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder for hire, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952A. We affirm, finding that the use of interstate…”
United States v. Carl M. Drury, Jr., M.D., Doctor, 396 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2005). “18U.S.C. § 1952A (1984). Several years later, as part of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Congress removed § 1952A from the Travel Act, reenacting it in virtually identical terms as a separate statute, 18 U.”
United States v. Pohlot, Stephen, 827 F.2d 889 (3rd Cir. 1987). “To accept this theory as a defense to mens rea requires manipulation of the concept of intent beyond what the “intent” element of 18 U.S.C. § 1952A requires. Pohlot therefore offered his evidence of mental abnormality in support of a legally unacceptable theory of lack of mens…”
Keith Wai Keung Ng v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 436 F.3d 392 (3rd Cir. 2006). “1991) (holding that the use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of a murder-for-hire under 18 U.S.C. § 1952A, the predecessor statute to § 1958, constitutes a crime of violence); cf.”
United States v. Aaron Morel Lebaron, Also Known as Jason Troy Barter, Also Known as Shawn Harvey Yates, 156 F.3d 621 (5th Cir. 1998). “The fourteen-count superseding indictment alleged Conspiracy to Commit Murder for Consideration, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952A (Count 1), Murder for Consideration, in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Carl Leibowitz, 857 F.2d 373 (7th Cir. 1988). “§ 371 ), use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder-for-hire (18 U.S.C. § 1952A), obstruction of justice ( 18 U.”
United States v. Mary Alice Wolf, 879 F.2d 1320 (6th Cir. 1989). “with intent that a murder be committed,” 18 U.S.C. § 1952A, and one count of conspiring to commit that offense, 18 U.”
United States v. Eugene Riccardelli & Thomas Dimiceli, 794 F.2d 829 (2d Cir. 1986). “A further indication of congressional intent that any use of the mails be sufficient to invoke federal jurisdiction under the Travel Act can be gleaned from the recently-enacted murder-for-hire statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1952A (Supp. II 1984), Pub.L.”
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.