18 U.S.C. § 1958

Use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder-for-hire

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Whoever travels in or causes another (including the intended victim) to travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or uses or causes another (including the intended victim) to use the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, with intent that a murder be committed in violation of the laws of any State or the United States as consideration for the receipt of, or as consideration for a promise or agreement to pay, anything of pecuniary value, or who conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both; and if personal injury results, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than twenty years, or both; and if death results, shall be punished by death or life imprisonment, or shall be fined not more than $250,000, or both.(b) As used in this section and section 1959—(1) “anything of pecuniary value” means anything of value in the form of money, a negotiable instrument, a commercial interest, or anything else the primary significance of which is economic advantage;(2) “facility of interstate or foreign commerce” includes means of transportation and communication; and(3) “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.(Added Pub. L. 98–473, title II, § 1002(a), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2136, § 1952A; renumbered § 1958 and amended Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, §§ 7053(a), 7058(b), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4402, 4403; Pub. L. 101–647, title XII, § 1205(k), title XXXV, § 3558, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4831, 4927; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60003(a)(11), title XIV, § 140007(b), title XXXII, § 320105, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), (N), (Q), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1969, 2033, 2111, 2147, 2148; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §§ 601(g)(3), 605(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3500, 3509; Pub. L. 108–458, title VI, § 6704, Dec. 17, 2004, 118 Stat. 3766.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2004—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 108–458, § 6704(1), substituted “facility of” for “facility in”.

Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 108–458, § 6704(2), inserted “or foreign” after “interstate”.

1996—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 104–294 substituted comma for “or who conspires to do so” after “or who conspires to do so” and substituted “this title or imprisoned” for “this title and imprisoned” before “for not more than twenty years”.

1994—Pub. L. 103–322, § 330016(1)(Q), which directed the amendment of this section by substituting “under this title” for “not more than $50,000”, could not be executed because the phrase “not more than $50,000” did not appear in text subsequent to amendment of subsec. (a) by Pub. L. 103–322, § 60003(a)(11). See below.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–322, § 330016(1)(N), substituted “fined under this title” for “fined not more than $20,000” after “injury results, shall be”.

Pub. L. 103–322, § 330016(1)(L), substituted “fined under this title” for “fined not more than $10,000” before “or imprisoned for not more than ten years”.

Pub. L. 103–322, §§ 140007(b), 320105, each amended subsec. (a) by inserting “or who conspires to do so” after “anything of pecuniary value,”.

Pub. L. 103–322, § 60003(a)(11), substituted “and if death results, shall be punished by death or life imprisonment, or shall be fined not more than $250,000, or both” for “and if death results, shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or shall be fined not more than $50,000, or both” before period at end.

1990—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 101–647, § 3558, substituted “section 1959” for “section 1952B” in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 101–647, § 1205(k), added par. (3).

1988—Pub. L. 100–690, § 7053(a), renumbered section 1952A of this title as this section.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 100–690, § 7058(b), substituted “ten years” for “five years”.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 642 cases (156 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case: United States v. Elain Young, 753 F.3d 757 (8th Cir. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Elain Young, 753 F.3d 757 (8th Cir. 2014). · cites it 12× “After a six-day trial, a jury convicted Elain "Kay" Young and Katherine "Kathy" Mock of conspiracy to commit murder-for-hire, resulting in death, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1958 and murder-for-hire, resulting in death, in violation of 18 U.”

United States v. Eugene Temkin, 797 F.3d 682 (9th Cir. 2015). · cites it 17× “§ 1951 (a); and (3) the use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder-for-hire under 18 U.S.C. § 1958 (a) (“murder-for-hire”).”

United States v. David Runyon, 707 F.3d 475 (4th Cir. 2013). · cites it 8× “On February 13, 2008, a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia returned a five- count indictment charging all three with the following crimes: • Count One: conspiracy to commit murder-for- hire, in violation of 18 U.”

United States v. Covington, 565 F.3d 1336 (11th Cir. 2009). · cites it 9× “CARNES, Circuit Judge: Robert Covington appeals his sentence and convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 1958 for using an interstate facility with the intent that a murder for hire occur.”

United States v. Lee, 549 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 2008). · cites it 10× “Lee was convicted of murder for hire conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1958 and being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.”

Keith Wai Keung Ng v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 436 F.3d 392 (3rd Cir. 2006). · cites it 10× “This petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) presents a single issue: whether Petitioner Keith Wai Keung Ng’s use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of a murder-for-hire, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1958 , constitutes an…”

United States v. Drury, 344 F.3d 1089 (11th Cir. 2003). · cites it 21× “appeals his convictions for using a facility in interstate commerce to effect a murder-for-hire scheme, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1958 (a), and for possessing a firearm in connection with a crime of violence, in violation of 18 *1093 U.”

United States v. Marek, 238 F.3d 310 (5th Cir. 2001). · cites it 5× “WIENER, Circuit Judge: According to its title, the federal murder-for-hire statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1958 (“ § 1958”), criminalizes the “[u]se of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder-for-hire.”

United States v. Gordon, 875 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2017). · cites it 7× “See 18 U.S.C. § 1958 (a). The defendant was tried and convicted on all counts, and the district court sentenced him to what amounted to twenty years’ imprisonment.”

United States v. Earnest Washington, United States of Am. v. Wendell E. Fortenberry, 318 F.3d 845 (8th Cir. 2003). · cites it 5× “They bring separate appeals which we have consolidated. We first address the challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence and then consider individual arguments by Washington and Fortenberry.”

United States v. Carl M. Drury, Jr., M.D., Doctor, 396 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2005). · cites it 6× “Drury appeals his convictions for violating the federal murder-for-hire statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1958 , and for possessing a firearm in connection with a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.”

United States v. Peña, 58 F.4th 613 (2d Cir. 2022). · cites it 6× “Counts Four, Five, and Six charged Peña with conspiring to commit, and committing, murder for hire in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1958 . Counts Seven and Eight charged Peña with use of a firearm to commit murder in violation of 18 U.”

Show all 642 citing cases →

— 18 U.S.C. § 1958(a) — 9 cases

United States v. Acierno, 579 F.3d 694 (6th Cir. 2009).

United States v. Drury, 344 F.3d 1089 (11th Cir. 2003). “appeals his convictions for using a facility in interstate commerce to effect a murder-for-hire scheme, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1958 (a), and for possessing a firearm in connection with a crime of violence, in violation of 18 *1093 U.”

Fisher v. United States, 638 F. Supp. 2d 129 (D. Mass. 2009).

United States v. Nelson Evans (4th Cir. 2026).

United States v. Landis Jackson (4th Cir. 2026).

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.