18 U.S.C. § 3147
Penalty for an offense committed while on release
A prior section 3147, added Pub. L. 89–465, § 3(a),
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).
Amendment by Pub. L. 99–646 effective 30 days after
Amendment by Pub. L. 98–473 effective
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 352
cases (33 in the last 5 years), 1967–2026 · leading case: United States v. Samuel, Leon A.
United States v. Samuel, Leon A. (2002)
“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 America v. William F. Kincaid, Jr. (1992)
“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 (2008)
“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 (1992)
“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 (2001)
“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 (2019)
“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 (2000)
“§ 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 (1987)
“§ 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 (2016)
“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 (2001)
“” 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 (2001)
“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 (1998)
“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.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 3147(1) — 2 cases
United States v. Dison (2009)
— 18 U.S.C. § 3147(b) — 1 case
Wright v. United States (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.