18 U.S.C. § 3232
District of offense—(Rule)
Proceedings to be in district and division in which offense committed, Rule 18.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: United States v. Marks, 530 F.3d 799 (9th Cir. 2008).
United States v. Marks, 530 F.3d 799 (9th Cir. 2008). “See 18 U.S.C. § 3232 ; Fed.R.Crim.P. 18("Unless a statute of these rules permit otherwise, the government must prosecute an offense in a district where the offense was committed.”
United States v. Rami Ghanem, 993 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2021). “See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3232–39; Fed. R. Crim. P. 18 (“Unless a statute or [the] rules permit UNITED STATES V.”
UNITED STATES of Am., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio M. ANGOTTI, Defendant-Appellant, 105 F.3d 539 (9th Cir. 1997). “18; 18 U.S.C. § 3232 . Determining where an offense was committed, however, has often been a sticky question.”
United States v. John M. Grabinski, 727 F.2d 681 (8th Cir. 1984). “§ 6091 (b)(1)(A)(i) & (ii) (1976), and federal law requires that a criminal prosecution must be brought at least initially in a district in which the offense was committed, see 18 U.S.C. § 3232 (1982); Fed.R.Crim.P. 18.”
United States v. Miller, 808 F.3d 607 (2d Cir. 2015). “Rule 18 itself is codified in 18 U.S.C. § 3232 . . Michelle Miller, the defendant in the cited opinion, is not related to Kenneth, Lisa, or Timothy Miller.”
United States v. Lee, 159 F. Supp. 2d 1241 (D. Haw. 2001). “18; see 18 U.S.C. § 3232 (2000). If an alleged offense was not committed in an area that is a “district,” Congress has directed that the trial “shall be in the district in which the offender .”
United States v. Guy Arthur Cates, Jr., 485 F.2d 26 (1st Cir. 1974). “§ 1861 seems particularly questionable as it would mean that Congress was, in practical effect, altering and enlarging the federal criminal venue statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3232 incorporating Fed.R.Crim.”
United States v. Stanko, 641 F. Supp. 2d 866 (D. Neb. 2009). “18 U.S.C. § 3232 ; 28 U.S.C. § 1861 ; Fed.”
United States v. Melvan, 676 F. Supp. 997 (C.D. Cal. 1987). “18 U.S.C. § 3232 ; Fed.R.Crim.Proc. Rule 18.”
United States v. Ruben Gonzalez Contreras, 697 F. App'x 298 (5th Cir. 2017). “18 (setting forth general venue rule “the government must prosecute an offense in a district where the offense was committed”); 18 U.S.C. § 3232 . But, “[v]enue is a mere personal and technical right which may be waived”.”
Ronald Schiavone v. Dragados S A (3rd Cir. 2018). “”4 3 The District Court had subject matter jurisdiction over the case pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3232 (a)(1). This Court has jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.”
Hernandez (D. Or. 2026). “41 (c)(2) “appears to be a facially valid interpretation of ‘successful participation’ as used in 18 U.S.C. § 3232 (d)(4)(A) since a primary purpose of the FSA in terms of recidivism programming is to reduce recidivism rates by providing inmate access to programming that focuses…”
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.