18 U.S.C. § 3148
Sanctions for violation of a release condition
A prior section 3148, added Pub. L. 89–465, § 3(a),
1986—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 99–646, § 55(a), (h)(1), substituted “under section 3142 of this title” for “pursuant to the provisions of section 3142”.
Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 99–646, § 55(h)(2), in introductory provision, substituted “such person’s arrest” for “his arrest”, “condition of release that such person not commit” for “condition of his release that he not commit”, and “period of release,” for “period of release”, in par. (1)(B) substituted “condition of release” for “condition of his release”, in par. (2)(A) inserted “of this title” after “section 3142(g)”, and in concluding provision, substituted “the judicial officer shall” for “he shall” and inserted “of this title” after “section 3142”.
Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 99–646, § 55(a), (h)(3), substituted “judicial officer” for “judge”, “under section 401 of this title” for “pursuant to the provisions of section 401”, and “condition of release” for “condition of his release”.
Amendment by Pub. L. 99–646 effective 30 days after
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 357
cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1966–2025 · leading case: United States v. Zu Quan Zhu, 215 F.R.D. 21 (D. Mass. 2003).
United States v. Zu Quan Zhu, 215 F.R.D. 21 (D. Mass. 2003). “Resolving the issue involves determining the interplay between the statute governing revocation of release, 18 U.S.C. § 3148 , and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.”
Reno v. Koray, 515 U.S. 50 (1995). “A defendant who is "released" is not in BOP's custody, and he cannot be summarily reassigned to a different place of confinement unless a judicial officer revokes his release, see 18 U. S. C. § 3148 (b), or modifies the conditions of his release, see § 3142(c)(3).”
United States v. James \Jimmie\" Earl Aron", 904 F.2d 221 (5th Cir. 1990). “See 18 U.S.C. § 3148 . On appeal to this court, Cook seeks revocation of the order of detention on the grounds that proper procedures were not followed and that he was denied the right to confront his accusers.”
United States v. Mark Allan Bayko, 774 F.2d 516 (1st Cir. 1985). “§§ 3145 , 3731 (1985), 2 contain no standard of appellate review, as was also the case under the provisions previously in effect, 3 18 U.S.C. § 3148 (repealed 1984), 4 *519 and, up until now, we have not had to consider what standard of review should be used.”
United States v. Anthony Provenzano, in No. 79-1912, & Thomas Andretta, in No. 79-1913, 605 F.2d 85 (3rd Cir. 1979). “Although his opinion alluded to the Fourth Circuit’s application of an abuse of discretion standard in its review of the district court’s decision, the appropriateness of that standard was neither raised nor addressed by the Circuit Justice’s decision.”
United States v. Stanton Miller & Robert Miller, 753 F.2d 19 (3rd Cir. 1985). “Ex Post Facto Claim Appellants contend that because all of the criminal events alleged in the indictment took place between September 1971 and February 1981, the prior Act governing bail on appeal, see 18 U.”
Butler v. United States, 481 A.2d 431 (D.C. 1984). “However, courts have continued to apply the unlimited statute of limitations ( 18 U.S.C. § 3148 (1982)) and more restrictive bail provisions ( 18 U.”
United States v. Paul Manafort, Jr., 897 F.3d 340 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “This brings us to the events directly underlying the instant appeal.”
United States v. Montalvo-Murillo, 495 U.S. 711 (1990). “See 18 U. S. C. § 3148 (b). I Two provisions of the Bail Reform Act of 1984 are relevant.”
United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 (1993). “Thus, 18 U. S. C.§ 3148(a) provides that "[a] person who has been released [pending trial], and who has violated a condition of his release, is subject to a revocation of release, an order of detention, and a prosecution for contempt of court.”
United States v. Irvin, 682 F.3d 1254 (10th Cir. 2012). “Counts 9 & 10 — Criminal Contempt Counts 9 and 10 charged the defendants with violating 18 U.S.C. § 3148 (c). 16 That section provides, “[t]he judicial officer may commence a prosecution for contempt .”
United States v. Eric Munchel, 991 F.3d 1273 (D.C. Cir. 2021). “While failure to abide by release conditions is an explicit ground for revocation of release in 18 U.S.C. § 3148 (b), it defies logic to suggest that a court cannot consider whether it believes the defendant will actually abide by its conditions when making the release…”
— 18 U.S.C. § 3148(a) — 1 case
United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 (1993). “Thus, 18 U. S. C.§ 3148(a) provides that "[a] person who has been released [pending trial], and who has violated a condition of his release, is subject to a revocation of release, an order of detention, and a prosecution for contempt of court.”
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.