U.S. Code » Title 18 » Part PART II— CRIMINAL PROCEDURE › Chapter CHAPTER 213— LIMITATIONS

18 U.S.C. § 3292

Suspension of limitations to permit United States to obtain foreign evidence

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)(1) Upon application of the United States, filed before return of an indictment, indicating that evidence of an offense is in a foreign country, the district court before which a grand jury is impaneled to investigate the offense shall suspend the running of the statute of limitations for the offense if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that an official request has been made for such evidence and that it reasonably appears, or reasonably appeared at the time the request was made, that such evidence is, or was, in such foreign country.(2) The court shall rule upon such application not later than thirty days after the filing of the application.(b) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, a period of suspension under this section shall begin on the date on which the official request is made and end on the date on which the foreign court or authority takes final action on the request.(c) The total of all periods of suspension under this section with respect to an offense—(1) shall not exceed three years; and(2) shall not extend a period within which a criminal case must be initiated for more than six months if all foreign authorities take final action before such period would expire without regard to this section.(d) As used in this section, the term “official request” means a letter rogatory, a request under a treaty or convention, or any other request for evidence made by a court of the United States or an authority of the United States having criminal law enforcement responsibility, to a court or other authority of a foreign country.(Added Pub. L. 98–473, title II, § 1218(a), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2167.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective 30 days after Oct. 12, 1984, see section 1220 of Pub. L. 98–473, set out as a note under section 3505 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 68 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: United States v. Kozeny, 541 F.3d 166 (2d Cir. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Kozeny, 541 F.3d 166 (2d Cir. 2008). · cites it 13× “The government had previously applied for, and had been granted, a suspension of the applicable statute of limitations pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3292 . The district court held that this suspension was invalid because the government’s application was filed after the limitations…”
United States v. George L.J. Wilson, 249 F.3d 366 (5th Cir. 2001). · cites it 9× “1 The Government argues that the indictment here was returned timely because the district court granted its application for a suspension of the statute of limitations under 18 U.S.C. § 3292 on December 21, 1994. Section 3292 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (a)(1) Upon…”
United States v. Rex K. Degeorge, AKA Rex Karageorge Degeorge, Rex Karageorgiou Degeorge, Angelos George Karageorgiou, Angelos George Karageorge, 380 F.3d 1203 (9th Cir. 2004). · cites it 7× “On August 25, 1997, the government filed an ex parte application for an order suspending the statute of limitations under 18 U.S.C. § 3292 , based on the pending foreign-evidence request.”
United States v. George Atiyeh United States of Am. v. George Atiyeh, 402 F.3d 354 (3rd Cir. 2005). · cites it 12× “In its response to the motion, the Government revealed that on October 5, 2001, it had filed an ex parte application under 18 U.S.C. § 3292 with the Grand Jury Supervising Judge, 8 who entered the requested order ex parte on the same day.”
United States v. Charly Sion Hagege, United States of Am. v. Charly Sion Hagege, 437 F.3d 943 (9th Cir. 2006). · cites it 7× “Absent any suspension period, the five-year statute of limitations applicable to count one would have expired on January 27, 2003, approximately eight months, before the indictment was filed: On September 26, 2002, the government moved for a suspension of the statute of…”
United States v. Richard William Peterson, 689 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2012). · cites it 7× “Specifically, Broughton argues 1) that the statute of limitations was improperly suspended under 18 U.S.C. § 3292 ; and 2) that because a five-year statute of limitations applies to both counts of the indictment, any alleged conspiracy was completed long before the return of the…”
United States v. Jenkins, 633 F.3d 788 (9th Cir. 2011). · cites it 7× “The principal legal issue we face is whether 18 U.S.C. § 3292 suspended the running of the statute of limitations for all counts.”
United States v. William P. Trainor, 376 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2004). · cites it 5× “The primary issue on appeal is whether the Government satisfied the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3292 (a)(1), under which “the government may apply, ex parte, for suspension of the statute of limitations when it seeks evidence located in a foreign country.”
United States v. Hoffecker, 530 F.3d 137 (3rd Cir. 2008). · cites it 3× “There is, however, a critical variation in the calculation of the limitations period when the Government requests assistance from a foreign country to gather evidence of offenses for in such situations it can apply to a district court to enter an order suspending the running of…”
Rex K. Degeorge, Petitioner, v. United States Dist. Court for the Cent. Dist. of California, Respondent, 219 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2000). · cites it 7× “Most critical to DeGeorge’s petition for a writ of mandamus, on August 26, 1997, the Assistant United States Attorney filed an ex parte, in camera application, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3292 , for an order suspending the running of the statute of limitations for any federal…”
United States v. Neill, 952 F. Supp. 831 (D.D.C. 1996). · cites it 13× “The Court construed 18 U.S.C. § 3292 to suspend the statute of limitations only for those offenses' for which foreign evidence had been officially, and specifically, requested.”
United States v. Meador, 138 F.3d 986 (5th Cir. 1998). · cites it 9× “This requires *988 decision of what constitutes “final action” within the meaning of the suspension provision in 18 U.S.C. § 3292 (b). The district court held that when a foreign government regards its efforts to satisfy an “official request” by the United States government as…”
Show all 68 citing cases →
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.