18 U.S.C. § 3267
Definitions
2004—Par. (1)(A). Pub. L. 108–375 amended subpar. (A) generally. Prior to amendment, subpar. (A) read as follows: “employed as a civilian employee of the Department of Defense (including a nonappropriated fund instrumentality of the Department), as a Department of Defense contractor (including a subcontractor at any tier), or as an employee of a Department of Defense contractor (including a subcontractor at any tier);”.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2007–2025 · leading case: United States v. Nicholas Slatten, 865 F.3d 767 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
United States v. Nicholas Slatten, 865 F.3d 767 (D.C. Cir. 2017). “See 18 U.S.C. § 3267 (1)(A) (2000). Following a series of high-profile offenses committed by non-Defense Department contractors— including those committed by private contractors employed by the United States Interior Department at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, Iraq—the…”
United States v. Ali, 71 M.J. 256 (C.A.A.F. 2012). “18 U.S.C. § 3267 (1) (2006). MEJA limits the phrase “accompanying the Armed Forces” to dependents of military members, civilian employees of the Department of Defense, or Department of Defense contractors.”
United States v. Rico Williams, 836 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “18 U.S.C. § 3267 (2). Further, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to find that he had the requisite state of mind for second-degree murder.”
United States v. Williams, 825 F. Supp. 2d 117 (D.D.C. 2011). “*119 Williams’ motion regarding the “residing with” element under MEJA, 18 U.S.C. § 3267 (2)(B), because the Court would be directing the parties to file supplemental briefing.”
United States v. Under Seal, 709 F.3d 257 (4th Cir. 2013). “Under 18 U.S.C. § 3267 (2)(A)(i), a person "accompanies” a member of the Armed Forces when he or she is a dependent of that member of the Armed Forces.”
United States v. Latasha Lorraine Arnt, A/K/A Latasha Lorraine Simpson & Latasha L. Cummings, 474 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2007). “” 18 U.S.C. § 3267 (2). 3 Arnt challenges the indictment’s failure to allege that she resided with SSgt.”
United States v. Flaming, 133 F.4th 1011 (10th Cir. 2025). “But other sections of the MEJA, 18 U.S.C. § 3267 (1) and (2), limit who falls within the United States’s criminal jurisdiction by defining the phrases “employed by the Armed Forces outside the United States” and “accompanying the Armed Forces outside the United States,” which…”
United States v. Emilio Moran, 70 F.4th 797 (4th Cir. 2023). “” 18 U.S.C. § 3267 (1). And it defines “accompanying the Armed Forces outside the United States” to include a “dependent” who is “residing” with a member of the military or employee of the military— as defined in § 3267(1)—who is “not a national of or ordinarily resident in the…”
United States v. Civilian ALAA MOHAMMAD ALI, 70 M.J. 514 (A.C.C.A. 2011). “18 U.S.C. § 3267 (l)(a) and (e). In 2006, Congress amended Article 2(a)(10), UCMJ, 10 U.”
United States v. Nicholas Slatten (D.C. Cir. 2017). “See 18 U.S.C. § 3267 (1)(A) (2000). Following a series of high-profile offenses committed by non-Defense Department contractors— including those committed by private contractors employed by the United States Interior Department at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, Iraq—the…”
United States v. Williams (D.D.C. 2011). “On or about July 3, 2005, the defendant, RICO RODRIGUS WILLIAMS, a citizen of the United States, was accompanying the Armed Forces outside the United States, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 3267 (2), that is: a. The defendant was the dependent of a member of the United States Armed…”
United States v. Williams (D.D.C. 2011). “18 U.S.C. § 3267 (2)(B); see also Nov. 9, 2010 Tr.”
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.