18 U.S.C. § 2071
Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§ 234, 235 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §§ 128, 129, 35 Stat. 1111, 1112).
Section consolidates sections 234 and 235 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed.
Reference in subsection (a) to intent to steal was omitted as covered by section 641 of this title.
Minor changes were made in phraseology.
1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted “fined under this title” for “fined not more than $2,000” in subsecs. (a) and (b).
1990—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 101–510 inserted at end “As used in this subsection, the term ‘office’ does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.”
Pub. L. 101–510, div. A, title V, § 552(b),
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 120
cases (42 in the last 5 years), 1949–2026 · leading case: United States v. Oliver L. North, 910 F.2d 843 (D.C. Cir. 1990).
United States v. Oliver L. North, 910 F.2d 843 (D.C. Cir. 1990). “After extensive pretrial proceedings and a twelve-week trial, North was convicted in May of 1989 on three counts: aiding and abetting an endeavor to obstruct Congress in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Lang, 364 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir. 2004). “Lang guilty of unlawfully removing a document from a federal clerk’s office in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2071 (a). After departing downward to offense levels of 21, the district court sentenced each of the Langs to a forty-six-month prison term.”
United States v. Oliver L. North, 920 F.2d 940 (D.C. Cir. 1990). “Count 9 Authorization Instructions The IC is barred from arguing that we erred in construing 18 U.S.C. § 2071 (b) to require that a defendant possess “knowledge of unlawfulness.”
United States v. Hitselberger, 991 F. Supp. 2d 108 (D.D.C. 2014). “Hitselberger: the defendant’s motions to (1) suppress documents seized after the search of his backpack, (2) suppress a document seized after the search of his room, and (3) dismiss the counts that allege violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2071 , as well as (4) the government’s motion to…”
United States v. Rosner, 352 F. Supp. 915 (S.D.N.Y. 1972). “For the reasons that follow, the motion to dismiss is granted as to Count 3 and as to all reference to 18 U.S.C. § 2071 in Count 1. The motion is denied in all other respects.”
Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972). “§ 793 ), the concealment or removal of public records or documents ( 18 U. S. C. § 2071 ), and conspiracy to commit such offenses and to defraud the United States ( 18 U.”
United States v. Joseph Gale May, 625 F.2d 186 (8th Cir. 1980). “§ 1001 , attempted to cause records to be concealed in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2071 , and submitted a false claim for payment in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Chi Tong Kuok, 671 F.3d 931 (9th Cir. 2012). “May was then charged with “ ‘unlawfully attempt(ing) to cause to have concealed, obliterated, or destroyed’ government records” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2071 . Id. We do not find May persuasive on this issue, because, while the indictment may have charged “attempting to…”
Idema v. Dreamworks, Inc., 162 F. Supp. 2d 1129 (C.D. Cal. 2001). “§ 1924 ; 18 U.S.C. § 2071 ; 18 U.S.C. § 641 ; 18 U.”
United States v. Lawrence R. Gottfried, 58 F.3d 648 (D.C. Cir. 1995). “Gottfried pled guilty to one count of unlawful concealment, removal, and mutilation of government records in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2071 . The district court sentenced him to fifteen months’ imprisonment and ordered him to make restitution to the United States Treasury in the…”
United States v. John Michael Donner, 497 F.2d 184 (7th Cir. 1974). “§ 1361 , 1 18 U.S.C. § 2071 , 2 and 50 U.S.C. App. § 462(a), 3 all in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Oglivie, 29 M.J. 1069 (1990). “Altering a Public Record The offense of altering a public record in violation of UCMJ, Article 134, is based on 18 U.S.C. § 2071 . The offense is committed by altering, concealing, removing, mutilating, obliterating, destroying, or taking a public record with the intent to do…”
— 18 U.S.C. § 2071(b) — 1 case
United States v. Booth, 399 F. Supp. 975 (D.S.C. 1975).
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.