18 U.S.C. § 2326
Enhanced penalties
2017—Pub. L. 115–70 substituted “1344, or 1347 or section 1128B of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a–7b)” for “or 1344” and inserted “or email marketing” after “telemarketing” in introductory provisions.
1998—Pub. L. 105–184 inserted “, or a conspiracy to commit such an offense,” after “or 1344” in introductory provisions and substituted “shall” for “may” in two places.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1996–2025 · leading case: United States v. Smith
United States v. Smith (1997)
“0 based on the district court’s finding the Sentencing Commission failed to consider adequately those factors contained in 18 U.S.C. § 2326 , part of the Senior Citizens Against Marketing Scams Act of 1994 (hereinafter the SCAMS Act), and its particularized finding that this…”
United States v. Serges Jacques Descent (2002)
“§ 371 and 18 U.S.C. § 2326 ; twenty-six counts of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Charles Lowell Kentz (2001)
“Moreover, as we shall explain in section IV, the district court did not plainly err in considering the statutory maximum to be fifteen years because that is the maximum penalty provided by 18 U.S.C. § 2326 for telemarketing which impacts more than ten victims over the age of 55.”
United States v. Robert Louis Syrax, AKA Bob Johnson, AKA Robert L. Syrax (2000)
“§ 2314 , interstate transportation of property obtained by fraud, and 18 U.S.C. § 2326 , which provides for enhanced penalties for telemarketing.”
United States v. Warren (2021)
“The superseding indictment also charged that each offense occurred in connection with the conduct of telemarketing and victimized ten or more persons over the age of 55, which, if proven, allows a sentencing enhancement of up to ten years under 18 U.S.C. § 2326 . Martinez and…”
United States v. Raymond William Curly (1999)
“1 In the indictment, the United States repeatedly noted that it was seeking an enhanced penalty pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2326 , which provides for lengthy terms of imprisonment for persons convicted under sections 1341, 1342 and 1343 “in connection with the conduct of…”
United States v. White (1997)
“He appeals his sentence on the ground that the district court erred in departing upward after it decided that the Sentencing Commission had failed to consider adequately the factors contained in 18 U.S.C. § 2326 , part of the Senior Citizens Against Marketing Scams Act of 1994…”
United States v. Terrance D. Brown (1998)
“18 U.S.C. § 2326 . Congress passed the SCAMS Act because “[m]any Americans, but particularly older men and women, have been targeted and victimized by illicit telemarketers.”
United States v. John Wesley Scrivener (1999)
“18 U.S.C. § 2326 (emphasis added); see also 139 Cong.”
United States v. Michael Davis (96-5895) and Miles Jones (96-5905) (1999)
“Specifically, Title 18 U.S.C. § 2326 , at the time of sentencing, provided for enhanced penalties for persons convicted of an offense under, inter alia, § 1343: (2) in the case of an offense under any of these sections that— (A) victimized ten or more persons over the age of 55;…”
United States v. James Donald Robinson, Jr. (1998)
“18 U.S.C. § 2326 . That provision does not apply to the instant case, which terminated in 1993.”
United States v. Johnson (2002)
“See 18 U.S.C. § 2326 . . Section 2327(b)(4) provides: (4) Order Mandatory.”
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.