18 U.S.C. § 372
Conspiracy to impede or injure officer
If two or more persons in any State, Territory, Possession, or District conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof, or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave the place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties, each of such persons shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six years, or both.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 77
cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1955–2026 · leading case: United States v. Rakes, 510 F.3d 1280 (10th Cir. 2007).
United States v. Rakes, 510 F.3d 1280 (10th Cir. 2007). “§ 876 , and conspiring to impede or injure an officer, 18 U.S.C. § 372 . After initially pleading not guilty, Mr.”
United States v. Duane Ehmer, 87 F.4th 1073 (9th Cir. 2023). “EHMER 7 violation of 18 U.S.C. § 372 , the panel held (1) the district court did not err in declining to instruct the jury that the phrase “person .”
Sherwin S. Stern v. United States Gypsum, Inc., 547 F.2d 1329 (7th Cir. 1977). “Our conclusion that § 1985(1) does not limit its protections to officers injured while attempting to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment is bolstered by the interpretation other courts have given the counterpart criminal statute, 18 U.”
United States v. Gerhard, 615 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 2010). “Defendants were indicted in January 2008 on charges of conspiring to prevent federal officers from discharging their duties, 18 U.S.C. § 372 (Count 1), conspiring to commit offenses against the United States, id.”
Bundy v. United States Dist. Court for the Dist. of Nevada, 840 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2016). “§ 371 ; Conspiracy to Impede or Injure a Federal Officer, 18 U.S.C. § 372 ; Use and Carry of a Firearm in Relation to a 1 The incident has its own Wikipedia page.”
United States v. Brown, 669 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2012). “Both Edward and Elaine were charged with: (1) conspiring to prevent federal officers from discharging their duties under 18 U.S.C. § 372 ; (2) conspiring to assault, resist or impede federal officers under 18 U.”
Richard L. Windsor v. The Tennessean, 719 F.2d 155 (6th Cir. 1984). “The district court also held that the complaint does not state a cause of action because transgressions of section 1985(1) would also constitute violations of 18 U.S.C. § 372 , a criminal provision and counterpart to section 1985(1) having nearly identical language.”
United States v. Beale, 620 F.3d 856 (8th Cir. 2010). “Robert Beale, John Pelton, and Frederick Bond were convicted of conspiracy to prevent by intimidation a judicial officer from discharging her official duties, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 372 , and obstruction of justice, in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Carolyn Jackson, 862 F.3d 365 (3rd Cir. 2017). “2007) (affirming district court’s conclusion that conspiracy to impede or injure an officer under 18 U.S.C. § 372 was most analogous to crimes corresponding to U.”
Kittner v. Gates, 783 F. Supp. 2d 170 (D.D.C. 2011). “§ 1001 , which prohibit false or fraudulent statements in "any matter within the jurisdiction” of the federal government, and 18 U.S.C. § 372 , which prohibits conspiracies to impede or injure a federal officer).”
United States v. Lampley, 127 F.3d 1231 (10th Cir. 1997). “Title 18 U.S.C. § 372 makes it unlawful to conspire to induce any officer 12 of the United States to engage in conduct constituting a felony.”
United States v. Landers, 564 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2009). “See 18 U.S.C. §§ 372 , 876. In this appeal, Landers argues the district court erred by (1) declining to initiate proceedings to determine his competency to stand trial, (2) refusing to allow him to employ an expert witness for purposes of a psychological evaluation, and (3)…”
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.