18 U.S.C. § 505
Seals of courts; signatures of judges or court officers
Whoever forges the signature of any judge, register, or other officer of any court of the United States, or of any Territory thereof, or forges or counterfeits the seal of any such court, or knowingly concurs in using any such forged or counterfeit signature or seal, for the purpose of authenticating any proceeding or document, or tenders in evidence any such proceeding or document with a false or counterfeit signature of any such judge, register, or other officer, or a false or counterfeit seal of the court, subscribed or attached thereto, knowing such signature or seal to be false or counterfeit, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 55
cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1965–2026 · leading case: United States v. Perry Reich, 479 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2007).
United States v. Perry Reich, 479 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2007). “§ 1512 (c)(2), one count of forging a judge’s signature, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 505 , and one count of making a false statement to a federal officer, in violation of 18 U.”
Grove v. Wells Fargo Fin. California, Inc., 606 F.3d 577 (9th Cir. 2010). “Therefore, as I see it, we should determine whether in the FRCA Congress manifested *584 a clear intent to exceed the limits in § 1920.”
United States v. Cowan, 116 F.3d 1360 (10th Cir. 1997). “This appeal presents the question of whether the intent to defraud is an element of the crime of forging the signature of a federal judge in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 505 . Section 505 provides in relevant part: “Whoever forges the signature of any judge .”
Yong Wong Park v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 472 F.3d 66 (3rd Cir. 2006). “For example, in addition to criminalizing the fabrication of money or monetary instruments, other sections of this Chapter criminalize, inter alia, the counterfeiting of seals of courts and signatures of judges or court officers ( 18 U.S.C. § 505 ); the counterfeiting of seals…”
Commonwealth v. Brown, 145 A.3d 184 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016). “See Trial Court Opinion, 6/11/15, at 3-4 n. 1. However, the court denied Brown's second request for an extension, stating that "the notes were not necessary in this basic VOP case.”
United States v. James N. Barber, 39 F.3d 285 (10th Cir. 1994). “Barber was indicted and convicted for forging the signature of a judge of the United States Court of Claims, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 505 . Mr. Barber appeals his conviction and his sentence arguing the jury instructions concerning intent to defraud were incomplete and…”
Trevor Drakes v. Charles W. Zimski, Acting Dir. of Immigr. & Naturalization Serv. Janet Reno, Attorney Gen., 240 F.3d 246 (3rd Cir. 2001). “Thus, in Congress’ view, it may well be possible to commit “forgery” without “fraud,” or at least fraud in the ordinary sense of misrepresentation for material gain. See United States v.”
United States v. Ronald J. Goldberg, 67 F.3d 1092 (3rd Cir. 1995). “Goldberg was indicted for forging the signature of a judicial officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 505 , and for making a materially false statement to a federal agency in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Sellors, 572 F. App'x 628 (10th Cir. 2014). “Paul Ernest Sellors, proceeding pro se, appeals from his four-count conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 505 , which prohibits forging or counterfeiting the seal of a court of the United States or knowingly concurring in using any such forged or counterfeit seal.”
Monahan v. Winn, 276 F. Supp. 2d 196 (D. Mass. 2003). “§ 152 ), and one in the District of Massachusetts for forging the signature of a court officer ( 18 U.S.C. § 505 ). He was sentenced in the New Hampshire case to imprisonment for one year and one day 1 *201 and sentenced in the Massachusetts case to imprisonment for 30 days, to…”
United States v. Martin P. Dyer, 546 F.2d 1313 (7th Cir. 1976). “The charge was concurring in the use of the forged signature of a federal judge to authenticate a document, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 505 . The defendant has moved to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.”
Effie Film, LLC v. Pomerance, 909 F. Supp. 2d 273 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). “) Two days later, Effie Film notified the Court that it intended to defer any response to Pomerance’s statements in the May 8, 2012 letter because Effie Film intends to move for an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 505 in the event of judgment in its favor.”
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.