18 U.S.C. § 3363

Joinder of offenses—(Rule)

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
See Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

Joinder of two or more offenses in same indictment, Rule 8(a).

Trial together of indictments or informations, Rule 13.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 830.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1992–2022 · leading case: United States v. Elvis E. Webb
United States v. Elvis E. Webb (1994) ca6 “98-473, as 18 U.S.C. §§ 3363 & 3364. . "We must interpret the statute as a whole, making every effort not to interpret a provision in a manner that renders other provisions of the same statute inconsistent, meaningless, or superfluous.”
United States v. Michael Norwood (2022) ca3 “Coyne Office of United States Attorney 970 Broad Street, Room 700 Newark, NJ 07102 Counsel for Appellee _________________ OPINION _________________ KRAUSE, Circuit Judge In the nearly four decades since Congress enacted the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982 (“VWPA”), 18…”
United States v. Timmy Cliatt (2003) ca9 “1997), the Second Circuit interpreted the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982 (“VWPA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3363 . The court concluded that the victim of the defendant’s extortionist threats had suffered a “loss” equal to the amount of money it cost to relocate him and his family,…”
United States v. Thomas A. Burger, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Inc., Amicus Curiae (1992) ca10 “§§ 3579 , 3580 (recodified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 3363 , 3364), a sentencing court may order “ ‘a defendant convicted of an offense’ to ‘make restitution to any victim of such offense.”
United States v. Dailey (2006) ca4 “See 18 U.S.C. § 3363 . Additionally, the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (the “MVRA”) provides, as pertinent, that a sentencing court shall award restitution to victims of certain categories of offenses, including “a crime of violence, as defined in [18 U.”
United States v. Sampson (2004) ca9 “Sampson challenges the legality of the order, which he argues was not authorized by either the Victim and Witness Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3363 et seq., or the written plea agreement into which he entered with the government.”
United States v. G. Coleman, Jr. (2017) ca5 “We therefore VACATE the district court’s denial of the motion, and REMAND for rehearing, with instructions to consider only those factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3363 (a). * Pursuant to 5th Cir.”
United States v. Hudack (1995) mied “In two unpublished opinions, the Sixth Circuit, citing 18 U.S.C. § 3363 (a)(3), has rejected challenges to orders of restitution in the amount agreed to by the defendants in their plea agreements.”
United States v. Webb (1995) mied “In two unpublished opinions, the Sixth Circuit, citing 18 U.S.C. § 3363 (a)(3), has rejected challenges to orders of restitution in the amount agreed to by the defendants in their plea agreements.”
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.