18 U.S.C. § 3573
Petition of the Government for modification or remission
For a prior section 3573, applicable to offenses committed prior to
1988—Pub. L. 100–690 inserted at end “This section shall apply to all fines and assessments irrespective of the date of imposition.”
1987—Pub. L. 100–185 substituted “Petition of the Government for modification or remission” for “Modification or remission of fine” in section catchline and amended text generally, revising and restating as a single paragraph with three numbered clauses provisions formerly contained in subsecs. (a) and (b).
Section effective
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 62
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1976–2022 · leading case: United States v. O'Connor
United States v. O'Connor (2004)
“§ 3013 — $5,050 for O’Connor and $5,700 for Geisler — be remitted, or set aside, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3573 . That section provides, in part, that “[u]pon petition of the Government showing that reasonable efforts to collect a fine or assessment are not likely to be effective,…”
United States v. Robert Morales, Sr. (2003)
“§ 3583 and 18 U.S.C. § 3573 . II The district court lacked jurisdiction to vacate or reduce monthly payments on the fine under Fed.”
United States v. McMillan (1997)
“However, the district court also ruled on May 20, 1996: “The court’s authority to change a fine is not provided for in Rule 35(b) but is controlled by 18 U.S.C. § 3573 and may be invoked by a petition for remission under that statutory authority.”
United States v. Eric D. Goode (2003)
“And, as the district court pointed out, only the Government may petition for remission under 18 U.S.C. § 3573 . See United States v. Linker, 920 F.”
United States v. Pio Garcia, United States of America v. Wilfredo Antonmarchi (1976)
“Although enacted in the same legislative package as statutes dealing with dangerous special offenders, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3573 and 3576, we find no explicit limitation in the statutory language nor do we glean a congressional intention to restrict the provisions of § 3577 to special…”
United States v. Edmund Phillips (2021)
“The government contends that, based on the statutory history of § 3612 and 18 U.S.C. § 3573 (an assertedly analogous statute dealing with fines), Congress rejected creating a mechanism for defendants to challenge their interest obligations post-sentencing.”
United States v. Arthur D. Seale, Arthur Seale, No. 92-5686. United States of America v. Irene J. Seale, Irene Jacquelin (1994)
“We note that careful, deliberate analysis on the district court's part — concerning both its determination of a future, hypothetical ability to pay a fine and the precise amount of the fine imposed — is crucial today, since the amendment of 18 U.S.C. § 3573 in 1987. Previously,…”
United States v. Darrell I. Lowe (1988)
“Compare 18 U.S.C. § 3573 , Increased Sentence For Dangerous Special Offender, with 21 U.”
United States v. Tuggle (1992)
“18 USC § 3573 . Should the Government show “that reasonable efforts to collect” the fine “are not likely to be effective, the court may” then “remit all or part of the unpaid” fine, defer payment (to a later date or on an installment schedule), or extend the payment date.”
United States v. Carlton Keith Roper, A/K/A Danny Lewis, United States of America v. George O'Neil Butler (2006)
“” 18 U.S.C.A. § 3573 (West 2000)(emphasis added); see also 18 U.”
United States v. Larry R. Linney (1998)
“See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3573 (West Supp.1997) (permitting the court to modify or remit a fine or assessment upon a showing that efforts to collect are not likely to be effective).”
United States v. Regina Donaldson (1986)
“1837 , 1997 (1984) (to be codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3573 ), provides that a defendant may petition the district court at any time for modification or remission of a fine.”
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.