18 U.S.C. § 2
EXTENSION OF PAROLE COMMISSION.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16,473
cases (1,422 in the last 5 years), 1928–2026 · leading case: Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.
Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. (2012)
“For example, the aiding and abetting provision in the Federal Criminal Code states, in language similar to the language of section 271(b) of the Patent Act, that “[w]hoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its…”
United States v. James P. Hornaday (2004)
“§ 2422 (b), and it is also a crime to aid or abet another in committing a federal crime, 18 U.S.C. § 2 . After using the internet to contact a person, who turned out to be an undercover government agent, in order to arrange for sex with two children, James Hornaday was charged…”
United States v. Encarnacion-Ruiz (2015)
“§ 924 (c) by using a firearm in connection with a drug trafficking offense, or, in the alternative, aiding and abetting that crime under 18 U.S.C. § 2 . Id. At trial, Rosemond contended that he "took no action with respect to any firearm.”
United States v. Marvin Baker (2005)
“§ 841 (a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 ; Count 5: Charged Harper with distribution of in excess of 50g of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.”
Central Bank of Denver, N. A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N. A. (1994)
“2-465 (rev. 1993). Congress knew how to impose aiding and abetting liability when it chose to do so.”
United States v. William Ruffin (1979)
“The central issue raised on this appeal is whether a person incapable of personally committing a specified crime (in this case because he was not an officer, director, agent or employee of an agency receiving federal financial assistance) who causes an innocent agent meeting the…”
United States v. F. W. Standefer (1979)
“Although, on its face, § 7214(a)(2) applies only to government employees, such a charge is possible under federal law as a result of 18 U.S.C. § 2 , 4 which allows the punishment of an aider and abettor as if he were a principal.”
United States v. Harry Seidman (1998)
“§ 501 (c) (West 1985), or aiding and abetting the same, see 18 U.S.C.A. § 2 (West 1969). The district court sentenced Seidman to thirty-nine months imprisonment on each count, the sentences to run concurrently, and imposed a fine of $30,000.”
United States v. Joseph M. Margiotta (1982)
“Instead, Judge Sifton instructed that Margiotta could be found guilty of extortion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2 (b) only if the jury found that he had caused public officials acting under color of official right to induce a victim to part with money.”
Busic v. United States (1980)
“§ 111 LaRocca as the actual triggerman and Busic as an aider and abettor, and thus derivatively a principal under 18 U. S. C. § 2 . In addition, LaRocca was convicted of using a firearm in the commission of a federal felony in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. William A. Raper, United States of America v. Eli B. Childs, Jr. (1982)
“The indictment on this count specifically cited and relied upon the aiding and abetting statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2 . Count II charged unlawful possession of heroin in violation of D.”
United States v. Catalan-Roman (2009)
“§ 1951 (b)(3) (count one), aiding and abetting the use of a firearm in relation to the conspiracy in count one, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 , 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) (count two), [4] aiding and abetting the March 27 robbery of an armored vehicle, in violation of 18 U.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 2(a) — 8 cases
United States v. Jacob Polin (1963)
— 18 U.S.C. § 2(b) — 8 cases
Soto-Cosme v. United States (2018)
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.