18 U.S.C. § 206
Exemption of retired officers of the uniformed services
Sections 203 and 205 of this title shall not apply to a retired officer of the uniformed services of the United States while not on active duty and not otherwise an officer or employee of the United States, or to any person specially excepted by Act of Congress.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1954–2021 · leading case: United States v. Mario Biaggi & Meade Esposito, 853 F.2d 89 (2d Cir. 1988).
United States v. Mario Biaggi & Meade Esposito, 853 F.2d 89 (2d Cir. 1988). “Accordingly, a defendant prosecuted under one of those sections could have been convicted of bribery without proof of “corrupt” intent.”
Calvaresi v. United States, 216 F.2d 891 (10th Cir. 1954). “Counts three and four predicated on the same acts charged in counts one and two charged him with bribing and offering to bribe such jurors, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 206 . On the same day, indictment Number 13,778 containing two counts was returned against Jerry Benallo, Jr.”
Joseph F. Cefalu v. United States of Am., (Two Cases), 234 F.2d 522 (10th Cir. 1956). “It was charged in the second count that the same persons entered into a conspiracy to give and offer monies, things of value, and bribes to various jurors summoned on the panels in the case referred to in the first count, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 206 . Twenty-two overt acts —…”
In the Matter or Lowell S. Fallick, Bankrupt-Appellant v. Harry Kehr, 369 F.2d 899 (2d Cir. 1966). “(arbitration clauses in maritime or commerce transactions); 18 U.S.C. §§ 206 , 208 (bribery of arbitrator); 22 U.”
United States v. Heicklen, 858 F. Supp. 2d 256 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). “§ 1504 when considering appeal from conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 206 and 18 U.S.C. § 1503 ); Cammer v.”
Colon Ward v. United States, 296 F.2d 898 (5th Cir. 1962). “The Defendant Colon Ward appeals from a judgment of conviction under Count One of an indictment in which he was charged with offering money to an impaneled petit juror with intent to influence such juror’s action in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 206 . 1 The defendant raises…”
United States v. Milton Margoles, 294 F.2d 371 (7th Cir. 1961). “Defendant was acquitted on the first indictment which contained but one count and charged defendant violated 18 U.S.C.A. § 206 by indirectly offering a thing of value to a judge of a United States Court with intent to influence the judge’s decision in a pending matter.”
Lesnik v.Eisenmann SE (N.D. Cal. 2021). “Plaintiff’s third motion for default judgment seeks default judgment on 24 Plaintiff’s claims under the FLSA pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 206 and 207. Mot. at 18; TAC at ¶ 25 230–263.”
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. The Nutmeg Grp., LLC (N.D. Ill. 2020). “On December 10, 2019, Randall filed a Motion for a Revised Finding of Fact, Revised Conclusions of Law, and an Amended Judgement, as well as a Memorandum in Support (“Randall’s Motion”). [ECF Nos. 1096, 1097]. Shortly thereafter, Randall sua sponte filed a notice withdrawing one…”
Applicability of 18 U.S.C. § 281 to Selling Activities of Retired Military Officers (OLC 1981). “See 18 U.S.C. § 206 . The legislative history of the 1962 revision makes clear that Congress believed the status of inactive officers was not affected by the new law.”
Margoles v. United States, 278 F. Supp. 154 (E.D. Wis. 1967). “60-CR-83) Margóles was charged with offering a thing of value to a federal judge intending to influence him, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 206 . The jury found him “not guilty” of this offense.”
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.