18 U.S.C. § 3153
Organization and administration of pretrial services
1982—Pub. L. 97–267 substantially revised section by substituting provisions relating to the organization and administration of pretrial services for provisions relating to organization and administration of pretrial services agencies which vested the powers of five such agencies in the Division of Probation of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts and the powers of the remaining five agencies in Boards of Trustees, set forth requirements for membership and terms of office with respect to such Boards, and provided for appointment of Federal probation officers in agencies governed by the Division of Probation, and chief pretrial service officers in agencies governed by Boards of Trustees, which designated officers would be responsible for the direction and supervision of their respective agencies.
References in laws to the rates of pay for GS–16, 17, or 18, or to maximum rates of pay under the General Schedule, to be considered references to rates payable under specified sections of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, see section 529 [title I, § 101(c)(1)] of Pub. L. 101–509, set out in a note under section 5376 of Title 5.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 44
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1985–2024 · leading case: United States v. Michael Chaparro, 956 F.3d 462 (7th Cir. 2020).
United States v. Michael Chaparro, 956 F.3d 462 (7th Cir. 2020). “” 18 U.S.C. § 3153 (c)(1) & (3). This rule may protect some accused defendants, but its most important benefits accrue to the judicial system as a whole.”
United States v. Richard Stevens, 935 F.2d 1380 (3rd Cir. 1991). “1985), limited the testimony of his expert witness regarding the reliability of eyewitness identification.”
United States v. Caparotta, 676 F.3d 213 (1st Cir. 2012). “4 He invoked *217 18 U.S.C. § 3153 (c)(1), which states that “[e]xcept as provided in [ 18 U.”
United States v. William Pena, 227 F.3d 23 (2d Cir. 2000). “1991), to accommodate the confidentiality concerns associated with a defendant’s request for disclosure of exculpatory or impeachment information in the presentence report of a government witness apply to a similar request for such information in pretrial services materials,…”
United States v. Morrison, 778 F.3d 396 (2d Cir. 2015). “Morrison argues that 18 U.S.C. § 3153 (c) bars the district court’s reliance on positive results on drug tests administered by the Pretrial Services 'Agency (“pretrial services”) to enhance his term of imprisonment.”
United States v. Michael Griffith, 385 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2004). “1 After Griffith took the stand, the government challenged his credibility on cross-examination. In doing so, the prosecutor confronted Griffith with two allegedly false statements he made to his pretrial-services officer: 2 (1) that he was a United States citizen who holds a…”
United States v. Coleridge Lewter, Also Known as Corrupt, 402 F.3d 319 (2d Cir. 2005). “” 18 U.S.C. § 3153 (c)(1). PSRs are kept confidential primarily to *324 ensure the defendant’s candor.”
United States v. Andrew A. Perez, 473 F.3d 1147 (11th Cir. 2006). “Perez asserts that the 18 U.S.C. § 3153 (c) limitations on the use of information collected in the course of performing pretrial services prohibited this testimony.”
United States v. John Valenti & Charles Corces, Times Publ'g Co., Intervenor-Appellant. In Re Times Publ'g Co., 987 F.2d 708 (11th Cir. 1993). “We find the Times’s argument that the district court erred in relying on 18 U.S.C. § 3153 (c)(1) to find a compelling and legitimate interest in sustaining a seal on the closed proceeding before the magistrate judge, to be completely without merit and warrants no discussion.”
United States v. Francisco Hernandez-Espinoza, 890 F.3d 743 (8th Cir. 2018). “The district court asked Hernandez-Espinoza at sentencing about this inconsistency, and as we have already said, he eventually conceded he could pay a fine.”
UNITED STATES of Am., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Patrick GALLAGHER, Defendant-Appellant, 99 F.3d 329 (9th Cir. 1996). “The district court’s ruling allowed defendant to access the information he was seeking while maintaining the confidentiality requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 3153 (c)(1). The district court’s ruling was reasonable and therefore not an abuse of discretion.”
United States v. Jay Kerr, 981 F.2d 1050 (9th Cir. 1992). “Among other things, Kerr objects to the prosecutor’s use of a confidential pretrial services report.”
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.