18 U.S.C. § 499
Military, naval, or official passes
Whoever falsely makes, forges, counterfeits, alters, or tampers with any naval, military, or official pass or permit, issued by or under the authority of the United States, or with intent to defraud uses or possesses any such pass or permit, or personates or falsely represents himself to be or not to be a person to whom such pass or permit has been duly issued, or willfully allows any other person to have or use any such pass or permit, issued for his use alone, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases, 1932–2019 · leading case: United States v. Rogers, 75 M.J. 270 (C.A.A.F. 2016).
United States v. Rogers, 75 M.J. 270 (C.A.A.F. 2016). “2 Rogers was also convicted of one specification of conspiracy to obstruct justice, one specification of making a false official state- ment, one specification of improper use of a military identification card, one specification of violating 18 U.S.C. § 499 , and three spec-…”
United States v. Frantz, 2 C.M.A. 161 (1953). “” In brief, the board of review determined that the draftsman of the specification intended to allege, via Article 134 of the Code, supra, a violation of 18 USC § 499 , which renders criminal possession of a military pass or permit “with intent to defraud.”
United States v. Heldt, 668 F.2d 1238 (D.C. Cir. 1981). “By complaint filed the same day Wolfe was charged with having used and possessed on June 11, 1976 a falsely made, forged and altered official pass and permit in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 499 (1976). He waived the forty-five day limit for the filing of an indictment or information.”
United States v. Raymond Birch, United States of Am. v. Birsen N. Birch, 470 F.2d 808 (4th Cir. 1972). “Birch, were convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 499 (1970). 1 On this appeal they contend that the district court lacked jurisdiction to try them, that the court should have granted their motions for judgments of acquittal, and that the court should have allowed them to introduce…”
United States v. Leslie Todd, Jr., 909 F.2d 395 (9th Cir. 1990). “Counts 1 and 2 were dropped: (1) possession of a military permit with intent to defraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 499 (1988); and (2) possession of five or more false identification documents with intent to use unlawfully in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Cowan, 116 F.3d 1360 (10th Cir. 1997). “§ 498 (prohibiting forgery of military certificates of discharge); 18 U.S.C. § 499 (prohibiting forgery of military passes); 18 U.”
United States v. Warthen, 11 C.M.A. 93 (1959). “No objection was made by the defense at that time, but the correctness of the instruction is now challenged on the ground that the offense found is merely a simple disorder which carries a maximum confinement of four months.”
United States v. Moore, 5 C.M.A. 687 (1955). “The severe maximum punishment imposable is, we are sure, no accident — for the United States Code contains a close analogue to this provision of 18 USC § 499 , stating that: “Whoever falsely makes, forges, counterfeits, alters, or tampers with any naval, military, or official…”
United States Ex Rel. Hitchcock v. Kenton, 256 F. Supp. 296 (D. Conn. 1966). “§ 4208 (b), to a five year term of imprisonment for impersonating a member of the armed forces in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 499 and 701. On October 10, 1963 he was resentenced to three years imprisonment on one count, to be followed by three years probation on the other count.”
United States v. James, 42 M.J. 270 (C.A.A.F. 1995). “See also 18 USC § 499 (forging a military pass authorizes 5 years’ confinement) and RCM 1003(e)(l)(B)(ii), Manual, supra.”
United States v. Rogers, 78 M.J. 813 (2019). “Simpson, USCG BEFORE MCCLELLAND, HAVRANEK & BRUBAKER Appellate Military Judges BRUBAKER, Judge: A general court-martial of members with enlisted representation convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of two specifications of obstructing justice and one specification of…”
United States v. Mosley, 14 M.J. 852 (1982). “In upholding Congress’s constitutional power to punish extraterritorial forgery and the false use of government documents under 18 U.S.C. § 499 , the court concluded that “laws punishing fraud against the government include by implication acts committed in foreign countries.”
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.