18 U.S.C. § 4004
Oaths and acknowledgments
The wardens and superintendents, associate wardens and superintendents, chief clerks, and record clerks, of Federal penal or correctional institutions, may administer oaths to and take acknowledgments of officers, employees, and inmates of such institutions, but shall not demand or accept any fee or compensation therefor.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1953–2015 · leading case: United States v. Orleans-Lindsay
United States v. Orleans-Lindsay (2008)
“The Court also notes that, while Petitioner’s pro se Motion was signed in the presence of a Case Manager authorized to administer oaths under 18 U.S.C. § 4004 , see Pet’s Mot. at 10, Petitioner’s counseled filings are not supported by any additional affidavits or declarations.”
United States v. Andrew Ford, Sr. (1980)
“3(c), the notice of appeal was “notarized” by a parole officer acting pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4004 , but not until August 20.”
United States v. Levin (1953)
“§ 481 (Federal Bank Examiners in examination of federal banks or affiliates thereof) ; 18 U.S.C.A. § 4004 (Wardens, superintendents, and associate wardens of Federal Penal Institutions); 19 U.”
United States v. Hanks (1972)
“Each day a good many applications from inmates of the penitentiary at Leavenworth are received by this court, all sworn before a parole officer authorized to administer oaths under the provisions of 18 U.S.C.A. § 4004 . Hanks himself, *628 in connection with the numerous…”
Nolan v. State (1983)
“Ramsey, the attestation officer, avers that his signature is the signature of the officer authorized to administer oaths under 18 U.S.C.A. § 4004 . Art. 3731a, V.A.T.S.”
Pabon-Mandrell v. United States (2015)
“Petitioner submitted six affidavits in support of his motion, together with an un- *201 sworn declaration pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4004 . ECF Nos. 1-3-1-9; 2. 1 After the government opposed petitioner’s § 2255 motion (ECF No.”
State v. Purdin (1964)
“Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas,” and the instrument purported to show the authority of the administrative assistant to administer oaths under 18 U.S.C. § 4004 . The document was admitted over objection and appellant complains thereof on this appeal, as stated.”
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.