18 U.S.C. § 510
Forging endorsements on Treasury checks or bonds or securities of the United States
2002—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 107–273 substituted “fine under this title” for “fine of under this title”.
1996—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 104–294, § 602(e), struck out “that in fact is stolen or bears a forged or falsely made endorsement or signature” after “bond or security of the United States”.
Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 104–294, § 606(b), substituted “$1,000” for “$500”.
1994—Subsecs. (a), (b). Pub. L. 103–322, § 330016(1)(L), substituted “fined under this title” for “fined not more than $10,000”.
Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 103–322, § 330016(1)(H), substituted “fined under this title” for “fined not more than $1,000”.
1990—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 101–647 inserted semicolon after “or signature” in par. (2) and moved provisions beginning with “shall be fined” flush with left margin.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 116
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: Alvin Bobb v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 458 F.3d 213 (3rd Cir. 2006).
Alvin Bobb v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 458 F.3d 213 (3rd Cir. 2006). “Petitioner Alvin Bobb, a lawful permanent resident, pleaded guilty to forging a check in the amount of $13,277, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 510 (a)(2), and was sentenced to four months imprisonment.”
United States v. Larry Dwight Jaynes & April Marie Jaynes, 75 F.3d 1493 (10th Cir. 1996). “Jones on sixty-four United States Treasury cheeks totaling $21,415 and dated from May 2, 1988, through July 2, 1993, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 510 (a)(1) and 2. Count two charged the defendants with unlawfully passing, uttering and publishing the same cheeks, in violation of…”
United States v. Theodore Williams, 850 F.2d 142 (3rd Cir. 1988). “The issue in the case involves interpretation of the statute under which Williams was charged, 18 U.S.C. § 510 (a)(2) (hereinafter section 510(a)(2)), which provides, in pertinent part, that any person who with intent to defraud “passes, utters, or publishes .”
United States v. Altigraci Rosario, 118 F.3d 160 (3rd Cir. 1997). “Altigraci Rosario challenges her conviction on two counts of passing United States Treasury checks in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 510 (a). Of primary importance on appeal is Rosario’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence with regard to Count 1 of the indictment.”
United States v. Tami M. Lecoe, 936 F.2d 398 (9th Cir. 1991). “O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge: We must decide whether the sentencing provision of the statute criminalizing forged endorsements of United States Treasury checks, 18 U.S.C. § 510 , is sufficiently ambiguous to warrant application of the rule of lenity.”
United States v. Ladonna Kay Oliver, 908 F.2d 260 (8th Cir. 1990). “Oliver argues that she may not be imprisoned for more than one year because 18 U.S.C. § 510 (c) (1988) sets a one-year limit on the prison term for offenses involving the forgery and uttering of a United States Treasury check with a face value of $500.”
United States v. George William Blood (04-5101) & Stephen L. Crittenden (04-5261), 435 F.3d 612 (6th Cir. 2006). “Although § 513 and what is now 18 U.S.C. § 510 were enacted at different times, see Pub.”
United States v. Danny Fields, 783 F.2d 1382 (9th Cir. 1986). “§ 1708 ; and Count III, delivery of stolen Treasury checks in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 510 (b). A jury found him guilty on all three counts.”
United States v. Ralph Reginald Cain, 881 F.2d 980 (11th Cir. 1989). “§ 1708 (Counts I, II and III), and of retaining and concealing these three checks in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 510 . (Count IV). On appeal he challenges only his sentence.”
United States v. Ricky Kevin Smith, 915 F.2d 959 (5th Cir. 1990). “§ 495 2 when he should instead have been prosecuted and sentenced under 18 U.S.C. § 510 . 3 Section 495 penalizes both the forgery of any “writing” for the purpose of obtaining money from the United States and the publishing or uttering of any forged “writing” with intent to…”
United States v. Marvin Jesse Manuel, 912 F.2d 204 (8th Cir. 1990). “Marvin Jesse Manuel appeals from the sentence imposed by the district court after he pleaded guilty to a two-count substituted information charging him with forgery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 510 (a)(1) (1988) and possession of stolen mail in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Erica Hill, 40 F.3d 164 (7th Cir. 1994). “A jury convicted Erica Hill, a former postal employee, of stealing and cashing a United States treasury check from the mail in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 510 (a) and 1709. The district court sentenced Hill to three years probation on condition that she participate in work release…”
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.