The Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, or his authorized agent, shall investigate the work of the probation officers and make recommendations concerning the same to the respective judges and shall have access to the records of all probation officers.
He shall collect for publication statistical and other information concerning the work of the probation officers.
He shall prescribe record forms and statistics to be kept by the probation officers and shall formulate general rules for the proper conduct of the probation work.
He shall endeavor by all suitable means to promote the efficient administration of the probation system and the enforcement of the probation laws in all United States courts.
He shall, under the supervision and direction of the Judicial Conference of the United States, fix the salaries of probation officers and shall provide for their necessary expenses including clerical service and travel expenses.
He shall incorporate in his annual report a statement concerning the operation of the probation system in such courts.
He shall have the authority to contract with any appropriate public or private agency or person for the detection of and care in the community of an offender who is an alcohol-dependent person, an addict or a drug-dependent person, or a person suffering from a psychiatric disorder within the meaning of section 2 of the Public Health Service Act. This authority shall include the authority to provide equipment and supplies; testing; medical, educational, social, psychological and vocational services; corrective and preventative guidance and training; and other rehabilitative services designed to protect the public and benefit the alcohol-dependent person, addict or drug-dependent person, or a person suffering from a psychiatric disorder by eliminating his dependence on alcohol or addicting drugs, by controlling his dependence and his susceptibility to addiction, or by treating his psychiatric disorder. He may negotiate and award contracts identified in this paragraph without regard to section 6101(b) to (d) of title 41. He also shall have the authority to expend funds or to contract with any appropriate public or private agency or person to monitor and provide services to any offender in the community authorized by this Act, including treatment, equipment and emergency housing, corrective and preventative guidance and training, and other rehabilitative services designed to protect the public and promote the successful reentry of the offender into the community.
He shall pay for presentence studies and reports by qualified consultants and presentence examinations and reports by psychiatric or psychological examiners ordered by the court under subsection (b) or (c) of section 3552, except for studies conducted by the Bureau of Prisons.
Whenever the court finds that funds are available for payment by or on behalf of a person furnished such services, training, or guidance, the court may direct that such funds be paid to the Director. Any moneys collected under this paragraph shall be used to reimburse the appropriations obligated and disbursed in payment for such services, training, or guidance.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
30
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1988–2025 · leading case:
United States v. Soltero, 510 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2007).
United States v. Soltero, 510 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2007).
· cites it 10× “The Treatment Condition Soltero's next contention is that the following condition impermissibly delegates to the probation officer the court's exclusive authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3672 : As directed by the Probation Officer, the defendant shall pay all or part of the costs of…”
United States v. Matthew Eugene Dupas, 419 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. 2005).
· cites it 3× “We affirm the former and, although we are uncertain whether the latter was an improper delegation of the district court’s authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3672 , our very uncertainty persuades us that the district did not plainly err.”
United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 2× “C Condition 13 states: As directed by the Probation Officer, the defendant shall pay all or part of the costs of treating the defendant’s psychological or psychiatric disorder and/or sex offender treatment to the aftercare contractor during the period of community supervision,…”
United States v. Soltero, 506 F.3d 718 (9th Cir. 2007).
· cites it 10× “The Treatment Condition Soltero's next contention is that the following condition impermissibly delegates to the probation officer the court's exclusive authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3672 : As directed by the Probation Officer, the defendant shall pay all or part of the costs of…”
United States v. Parrish Kappes, 782 F.3d 828 (7th Cir. 2015).
· cites it 2× “15 Kappes overlooks 18 U.S.C. § 3672 , which authorizes a court to order repayment by the recipient of treatment “services, training, or guidance,” and 18 U.”
United States v. Jeremy Cary, 775 F.3d 919 (7th Cir. 2015).
· cites it 4× “” Title 18 U.S.C. § 3672 provides that: [t]he Director of Administrative Office of the United States Courts .”
Semper v. United States, 100 Fed. Cl. 621 (Fed. Cl. 2011).
· cites it 10× “§ 3602 (2006) and 18 U.S.C. § 3672 (2006). Plaintiff also seeks reinstatement to his former position as a probation officer and requests unspecified monetary damages.”
United States v. Matthew Eugene Dupas, 417 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2005).
· cites it 3× “We affirm the former and, although we are uncertain whether the latter was an improper delegation of the district court’s authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3672 , our very uncertainty persuades us that the district did not plainly err.”
United States v. David Crisp, Jr., 820 F.3d 910 (7th Cir. 2016).
· cites it 2× “-contends that under 18 U.S.C. § 3672 , only a district judge may decide his ability to pay for substance abuse treatment.”
United States v. Shawn Siegel, 753 F.3d 705 (7th Cir. 2014).
“Will his supervised release be revoked because he won’t be complying with the conditions in question in their entirety? Or will the government pay for them? It must mean the latter, see 18 U.S.C. § 3672 ; United States v. Smith, No.”
United States v. Trevor Hinds, 770 F.3d 658 (7th Cir. 2014).
· cites it 2× “The government answers with its own statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3672 . That statute provides in pertinent part: The Director of Administrative Office of the United States Courts .”
United States v. Devin Johnson, 765 F.3d 702 (7th Cir. 2014).
“We found that under 18 U.S.C. § 3672 , the government should bear those *712 costs if the defendant lacks the ability to pay for such treatment or programs.”
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.