18 U.S.C. § 401
Power of court
Based on section 385 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Judicial Code and Judiciary (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 268, 36 Stat. 1163).
Said section 385 conferred two powers. The first part authorizing courts of the United States to impose and administer oaths will remain in title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Judicial Code and Judiciary. The second part relating to contempt of court constitutes this section.
Changes in phraseology and arrangement were made.
2002—Pub. L. 107–273 inserted “or both,” after “fine or imprisonment,” in introductory provisions.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,543
cases (222 in the last 5 years), 1944–2026 · leading case: United States v. Abdullahi Farah, 766 F.3d 599 (6th Cir. 2014).
United States v. Abdullahi Farah, 766 F.3d 599 (6th Cir. 2014). “Defendant Abdullahi Farah was convicted after a two-day jury trial of violating 18 U.S.C. § 401 (3), for willfully disobeying an order requiring his testimony by deposition for use in a separate criminal prosecution and for violating 18 U.”
United States v. Aleo, 681 F.3d 290 (6th Cir. 2012). “I join the court's decision in full, including its conclusion that the district court abused its discretion when it invoked its inherent power to impose sanctions on defense attorney John Freeman for filing a frivolous motion.”
United States v. Jo Ann Williams, 622 F.2d 830 (5th Cir. 1980). “The government’s second theory is that Williams’ violation of the conditions of her bond is an offense proscribed by 18 U.S.C. § 401 (3) 10 or by 18 U.S.C. § 3146 , 11 or by *836 both.”
Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991). “A district court can punish contempt of its authority, including disobedience of its process, by fine or imprisonment, 18 U. S. C. § 401 ; award costs, expenses, and attorney's fees against attorneys who multiply proceedings vexatiously, 28 U.”
United States v. Wright, 812 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2016). “§§ 922 (g)(1) and 924(a)(2), and criminal contempt, , 18 U.S.C. § 401 (3), and was sentenced to concurrent terms of eighty months of imprisonment on each offense; three and five years of supervised release on the charges, respectively, to be served concurrently; and a $200 fine.”
Young v. United States Ex Rel. Vuitton Et Fils S. A., 481 U.S. 787 (1987). “Petitioners in these cases were found guilty of criminal contempt by a jury, pursuant to 18 U. S. C. § 401 (3), for their *790 violation of the District Court's injunction prohibiting infringement of respondent's trademark.”
Green v. United States, 356 U.S. 165 (1958). “Ultimately both voluntarily surrendered to the United States Marshal in New York, Green on February 27, 1956, and Winston on March 5, 1956. Shortly thereafter, the United States instituted criminal contempt proceedings against the petitioners in the District Court for willful…”
United States v. John A. Voss, United States of Am. v. Mitchell S. Beals, United States of Am. v. Brent L. Beals, 82 F.3d 1521 (10th Cir. 1996). “Beals appeal their jury convictions and sentences for criminal contempt under 18 U.S.C. § 401 (3). They argue that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support their convictions, that the district court applied the wrong provision of the United States Sentencing…”
In Re Leonard C. Jaques, Attorney, Attorney-Appellant. Ali S. Ahmed v. Reiss S.S. Co., 761 F.2d 302 (6th Cir. 1985). “On November 2, 1983, the District Court ordered Baun, Swickle and Jaques to appear and show cause why they should not be found in contempt under 18 U.S.C. § 401 for Jaques’ failure to appear on October 26 and for misrepresenting Jaques’ whereabouts.”
United States v. Richard A. Horn, 29 F.3d 754 (1st Cir. 1994). “And, moreover, even though a federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 401 , confers broad powers upon federal district courts to punish contumacious conduct, 9 most courts continue to hold that sovereign immunity bars court-imposed fines for contempt against the government.”
In the Matter of Hipp, Inc., Debtor. Thomas J. Griffith, Tr. v. David Oles, 895 F.2d 1503 (5th Cir. 1990). “Following an evidentiary hearing held pursuant to a show cause order issued on motion of the trustee of a Chapter 11 debt- or, the bankruptcy court entered an order dated April 8, 1988 convicting defendant-appellant David Oles (Oles) of criminal contempt, 18 U.S.C. § 401 (3),…”
United States v. Doreen Hendrickson, 822 F.3d 812 (6th Cir. 2016). “Following a guilty verdict and the imposition of eighteen months of confinement and one year of supervised release, Doreen *817 Hendrickson (“Hendrickson”) appeals her conviction for criminal contempt under 18 U.S.C. § 401 (3) and the terms of her sentence.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 401(1) — 6 cases
In the Matter of David Dellinger, 461 F.2d 389 (7th Cir. 1972).
Carlson v. United States (Three Cases), 209 F.2d 209 (1st Cir. 1954).
United States v. Roosevelt Rollerson, 449 F.2d 1000 (D.C. Cir. 1971).
United States v. Norberto Garcia-Pupo, (Two Cases). In Re Norberto Garcia-Pupo, 845 F.2d 8 (1st Cir. 1988).
United States v. Renfroe, 634 F. Supp. 1536 (W.D. Pa. 1986).
— 18 U.S.C. § 401(2) — 1 case
Farese v. United States, 209 F.2d 312 (1st Cir. 1954).
— 18 U.S.C. § 401(3) — 10 cases
United States v. Bowers, 847 F.3d 1280 (10th Cir. 2017).
Emil J. Nelson & Richard M. Roberts v. Harold G. Steiner & Ollie Mae Steiner, 279 F.2d 944 (7th Cir. 1960).
Angus M. MacNeil v. United States, 236 F.2d 149 (1st Cir. 1956).
Carlson v. United States (Three Cases), 209 F.2d 209 (1st Cir. 1954).
United States v. Collin Hawkins, 531 F. App'x 342 (4th Cir. 2013).
— 18 U.S.C. § 401(A)(3) — 1 case
United States v. Miguel Puente, 558 F. App'x 338 (5th Cir. 2013).
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.