U.S. Code » Title 18 » Part PART II— CRIMINAL PROCEDURE › Chapter CHAPTER 207— RELEASE AND DETENTION PENDING JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS

18 U.S.C. § 3147

Penalty for an offense committed while on release

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
A person convicted of an offense committed while released under this chapter shall be sentenced, in addition to the sentence prescribed for the offense, to—(1) a term of imprisonment of not more than ten years if the offense is a felony; or(2) a term of imprisonment of not more than one year if the offense is a misdemeanor.A term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be consecutive to any other sentence of imprisonment.(Added Pub. L. 98–473, title II, § 203(a), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 1983; amended Pub. L. 98–473, title II, § 223(g), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2028; Pub. L. 99–646, § 55(g), Nov. 10, 1986, 100 Stat. 3610.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 3147, added Pub. L. 89–465, § 3(a), June 22, 1966, 80 Stat. 215, related to appeals from conditions of release, prior to repeal in the revision of this chapter by section 203(a) of Pub. L. 98–473.

Amendments

1986—Pub. L. 99–646 substituted “under” for “pursuant to” in two places and “for the offense,” for “for the offense”.

1984—Pub. L. 98–473, § 223(g), struck out “not less than two years and” after “imprisonment of” in par. (1), and “not less than ninety days and” after “imprisonment of” in par. (2).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1986 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 99–646 effective 30 days after Nov. 10, 1986, see section 55(j) of Pub. L. 99–646, set out as a note under section 3141 of this title.

Effective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–473 effective Nov. 1, 1987, and applicable only to offenses committed after the taking effect of such amendment, see section 235(a)(1) of Pub. L. 98–473, set out as an Effective Date note under section 3551 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 352 cases (33 in the last 5 years), 1967–2026 · leading case: United States v. Samuel, Leon A., 296 F.3d 1169 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Samuel, Leon A., 296 F.3d 1169 (D.C. Cir. 2002). · cites it 15× “7 is unlike other Sentencing Guidelines enhancements because it does not independently increase a defendant’s of-' fense level, but rather does so only by reference to the violation of another statutory provision: 18 U.S.C. § 3147 . Guideline § 2J1.7 states: If an enhancement…”
United States v. William F. Kincaid, Jr., United States of Am. v. William F. Kincaid, Jr., 964 F.2d 325 (4th Cir. 1992). · cites it 16× “He challenges a three-level enhancement imposed pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3147 (West Supp.1992) and United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 2J1.”
United States v. Confredo, 528 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2008). · cites it 10× “7 enhancement applied, Judge Sand did not apportion the sentence between the underlying offenses and the enhancement, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3147 . First appeal. Confredo appealed, raising numerous claims.”
United States v. Joseph Michael Lincoln, A/K/A Mohammed Ali Ballagh Omer, 956 F.2d 1465 (8th Cir. 1992). · cites it 16× “Williams particularly demonstrates the flaw in the government’s argument before the District Court that because 18 U.S.C. § 3147 (1988) requires an enhanced sentence for a crime committed on release to be “consecutive to any other sentence of imprisonment,” id.”
United States v. John F. Parolin, 239 F.3d 922 (7th Cir. 2001). · cites it 6× “On March 2, 2000, the district court sentenced Parolin to 188 months of imprisonment on Counts One, Two, and Three, and to a consecutive six months pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3147 . The court also ordered that he pay restitution of $2.”
United States v. Sri Wijegoonaratna, 922 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2019). · cites it 6× “The panel held that the district court did not plainly err in applying an enhancement pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3147 and U.S.S.G. § 3C1.3 for committing a crime while on supervised release, where the defendant – whose counts of * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of…”
United States v. Adnan Bahhur, 200 F.3d 917 (6th Cir. 2000). · cites it 11× “§ 3146 (b)(2) for failure to appear, and twenty-three months consecutive pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3147 for commission of an offense while on release, to be followed by three years of supervised release and a special assessment of $150.”
United States v. Bradford Lamarr Patterson, 820 F.2d 1524 (9th Cir. 1987). · cites it 10× “§ 1202(a); and (2) the denial of his Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a) motion that challenged the enhancement of his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3147 for committing an offense while released on federal bond.”
United States v. Destry Marcotte, 835 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2016). · cites it 7× “Five of our sister courts have held that 18 U.S.C. § 3147 , through § 3C1.3 of the Sentencing Guidelines, can enhance a sentence for the crime of failing to appear under 18 U.”
United States v. Randy Gean Ellis, 241 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2001). · cites it 6× “” Under 18 U.S.C. § 3147 , the sentence for assault on a federal officer must be consecutive because that crime was committed while Ellis was released pending sentencing.”
United States v. Charles Lowell Kentz, 251 F.3d 835 (9th Cir. 2001). · cites it 6× “RYMER, Circuit Judge: The main issue we must decide is whether the district court is foreclosed from enhancing a sentence for an offense committed on pretrial release when the defendant has not been specifically warned in the pretrial release order that committing a new offense…”
United States v. Michael Benson, 134 F.3d 787 (6th Cir. 1998). · cites it 10× “Defendant Michael Benson has appealed the district court’s application of 18 U.S.C. § 3147 and U.S.S.G. § 2J1.7 to his sentence for failing to appear pursuant to 18 U.”
Show all 352 citing cases →
— 18 U.S.C. § 3147(1) — 2 cases
United States v. Dison, 573 F.3d 204 (5th Cir. 2009).
United States v. De'Andre Owens (7th Cir. 2025).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3147(b) — 1 case
Wright v. United States, 262 A.2d 350 (D.C. 1970).
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.