18 U.S.C. § 21
Stolen or counterfeit nature of property for certain crimes defined
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1992–2022 · leading case: United States v. Antonio Farias, 836 F.3d 1315 (11th Cir. 2016).
United States v. Antonio Farias, 836 F.3d 1315 (11th Cir. 2016). “” 18 U.S.C. § 21 (a) (emphasis added). By using the word “may,” § 21 permits the government to prove knowledge based on an official representation, but does not require the government to do so.”
United States v. Shalash, 108 F. App'x 269 (6th Cir. 2004). “Nor did the Government’s use of a deliberate-ignorance instruction in connection with 18 U.S.C. § 21 alter this conclusion. That section provides: (a) Wherever in this title it is an element of an offense that— (1) any property was embezzled, robbed, stolen, converted, taken,…”
United States v. Anthony Griffith & Christopher Griffith, 284 F.3d 338 (2d Cir. 2002). “Scienter as to the Minority Status of the Victim Under 18 U.S.C. §§ 21 $8 and 2251(a) The Griffiths next argue that the district court erred in instructing the jury that neither § 2251(a) nor § 2423 require the government to prove that the Griffiths *349 knew that their victims…”
Damian Sinclair, Individually & as Assignee of Sinclair Nat'l Bank v. John D. Hawke, Jr., 314 F.3d 934 (8th Cir. 2003). “Today, the OCC’s extensive oversight powers include approving applications for new national bank charters, for the grant of additional corporate powers, and for changes in the ownership of existing banks; issuing cease and desist orders and prompt corrective action notices to…”
United States v. Kamal Qazah, 810 F.3d 879 (4th Cir. 2015). “See 18 U.S.C. § 21 (defining stolen property to include property which was represented by law enforcement and persons under their direction to be stolen and which the defendant believed to be stolen).”
United States v. Clavis, 956 F.2d 1079 (11th Cir. 1992). “The government bases these convictions upon testimony by Brooks that at 760 Ann Avenue he saw a substantial quantity of material that appeared to be cocaine.”
Sea-Land Serv., Inc. v. Atl. Pac. Int'l, Inc., 61 F. Supp. 2d 1102 (D. Haw. 1999). “Section 1962(a) provides, in relevant part: It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt in which such person has participated as a principal…”
United States v. Sayre, 434 F. App'x 622 (9th Cir. 2011). “1Ob-5, and 18 U.S.C. § 21 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.”
United States v. Alquzah, 91 F. Supp. 3d 818 (W.D.N.C. 2015). “See 18 U.S.C. § 21 . The following assets were listed in the Preliminary Order of Forfeiture (Nunc Pro Tunc) (the “Preliminary Order”) filed herein on February 10, 2014, (Doc.”
Manivannan v. Bochenek (N.D.W. Va. 2018). “§ 552 (a)(6)(C)(i), and alleging violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 21 , 1701, and 1702. Id. Pursuant to 28 U.”
Raymond Patrick Crum v. Acting Warden (C.D. Cal. 2020). “2018) (“[T]he district 20 court lacked authority to entertain [petitioner's] request for relief under 18 U.S.C. § 21 3582(c)(1)(A) because he filed his request in the district in which he is currently confined 22 rather than in the district that imposed his sentence.”
Jones v. USA - 2255 (D. Maryland 2022). “Following a jury trial, Jones was convicted of one count of armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 21 13(4) (Count I); one count of interference with commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.”
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.