U.S. Code » Title 18 » Part PART II— CRIMINAL PROCEDURE › Chapter CHAPTER 209— EXTRADITION

18 U.S.C. § 202

FINDINGS.

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
“Congress finds that—“(1) each year, several hundred children are kidnapped by a parent in violation of law, court order, or legally binding agreement and brought to, or taken from, the United States;“(2) until the mid-1970’s, parental abduction generally was not considered a criminal offense in the United States;“(3) since the mid-1970’s, United States criminal law has evolved such that parental abduction is now a criminal offense in each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia;“(4) in enacting the International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act of 1993 (Public Law 103–173; 107 Stat. 1998; 18 U.S.C. 1204), Congress recognized the need to combat parental abduction by making the act of international parental kidnapping a Federal criminal offense;“(5) many of the extradition treaties to which the United States is a party specifically list the offenses that are extraditable and use the word ‘kidnapping’, but it has been the practice of the United States not to consider the term to include parental abduction because these treaties were negotiated by the United States prior to the development in United States criminal law described in paragraphs (3) and (4);“(6) the more modern extradition treaties to which the United States is a party contain dual criminality provisions, which provide for extradition where both parties make the offense a felony, and therefore it is the practice of the United States to consider such treaties to include parental abduction if the other foreign state party also considers the act of parental abduction to be a criminal offense; and“(7) this circumstance has resulted in a disparity in United States extradition law which should be rectified to better protect the interests of children and their parents.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 83 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1946–2026 · leading case: James W. Harlow, Charles E. Wilson & Thomas F. Addy v. United States, 301 F.2d 361 (5th Cir. 1962).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
James W. Harlow, Charles E. Wilson & Thomas F. Addy v. United States, 301 F.2d 361 (5th Cir. 1962). · cites it 8× “McLane, a representative of firms selling to the EES, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 202 . 3 Counts four through nine charged the appellant Harlow with receiving bribes from Robert T.”
Crandon v. United States, 494 U.S. 152 (1990). · cites it 2× “But even that effect (strangely contrived as it is) is largely if not completely eliminated by subsection (c), which entirely excludes from the section's coverage special Government employees, as defined in 18 U. S. C. § 202 , and uncompensated Government officers and employees.”
In re: Omar Khadr, 823 F.3d 92 (D.C. Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “§ 9903 ; 18 U.S.C. § 202 . Without getting too deep into the weeds for now, suffice it to say that the Department interprets those two statutory designations to authorize the Court’s civilian judges to serve part-time and earn outside income.”
De Veau v. Braisted, 363 U.S. 144 (1960). · cites it 2× “18 U. S. C. §§ 202 , 205, 206, 207, 216, 281, 282, 592, 1901, 2071, 2381.”
United States v. Robert McDonnell, 792 F.3d 478 (4th Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “The statute of conviction in Wilson was 18 U.S.C. § 202 , which authorized penalties for any federal officer or employee who "asks [for], accepts, or receives” a thing of value "with intent to have his decision or action on any question, matter, cause, or proceeding which may at…”
Ernest P. Wilson v. United States, 230 F.2d 521 (4th Cir. 1956). · cites it 5× “§ 201 , which contains language quite similar to that now before us in 18 U.S.C.A. § 202 . There the defendant Hurley, who feared that he was about to be drafted into the military service, paid $450.”
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,745 Dean Woods, & All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Covington Cnty. Bank, Edward Hoglund v. Covington Cnty. Bank, 537 F.2d 804 (5th Cir. 1976). “Congress, moreover, created an explicit exception to section 2105(d) in 18 U.S.C. § 202 which defines a reservist on active duty for training as a “special Government employee.”
Delaney v. United States, 199 F.2d 107 (1st Cir. 1952). · cites it 2× “This case was heard on consolidated appeals from a judgment of conviction on an indictment charging offenses under 18 U.S. C. § 202, and from a judgment of conviction on another indictment, charging offenses under 26 U.”
May v. United States, 175 F.2d 994 (D.C. Cir. 1949). · cites it 2× “§ 1781 (the counterpart of 18 U.S.C. § 202 (1946)) which made it an offense (1) for a member of Congress to take or to agree to take valuable consideration from any person for procuring any contract, office, or place from the Government or any department thereof, or from any…”
Union of Concerned Scientists v. EPA, 954 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2020). “Generally, advisory- committee members, who are considered "special government - 4 - employees," see 18 U.S.C. § 202 (a), are subject to regulations set out by the U.”
United States v. Samuel G. Beno, 324 F.2d 582 (2d Cir. 1963). · cites it 2× “*583 fluence his official decisions in violation of federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 202 . On appeal, Beno contends that the prosecution was improperly permitted to educe on cross-examination highly prejudicial evidence concerning specific acts of the defendant which were wholly…”
James Edgar Motto v. The United States, 348 F.2d 523 (Ct. Cl. 1965). · cites it 4× “Plaintiff, who had been serving on active duty in the United States Army since March 3,1941, was arraigned along with two other military defendants on June 6, 1958, in a United States District Court on a charge of violation of 18 U.S.C. § 202 (1958 ed.), a Federal bribery…”
Show all 83 citing cases →
— 18 U.S.C. § 202(a) — 1 case
Legal Authorities Available to the President to Respond to a Severe Energy Supply Interruption or Other Substantial Reduction in Available Petroleum Prods. (OLC 1982).
— 18 U.S.C. § 202(e)(1) — 1 case
Applicability of 18 U.S.C. § 208 to Nat'l Gambling Impact Study Comm'n (OLC 1999).
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.