18 U.S.C. § 751

Prisoners in custody of institution or officer

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Whoever escapes or attempts to escape from the custody of the Attorney General or his authorized representative, or from any institution or facility in which he is confined by direction of the Attorney General, or from any custody under or by virtue of any process issued under the laws of the United States by any court, judge, or magistrate judge, or from the custody of an officer or employee of the United States pursuant to lawful arrest, shall, if the custody or confinement is by virtue of an arrest on a charge of felony, or conviction of any offense, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both; or if the custody or confinement is for extradition, or for exclusion or expulsion proceedings under the immigration laws, or by virtue of an arrest or charge of or for a misdemeanor, and prior to conviction, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.(b) Whoever escapes or attempts to escape from the custody of the Attorney General or his authorized representative, or from any institution or facility in which he is confined by direction of the Attorney General, or from any custody under or by virtue of any process issued under the laws of the United States by any court, judge, or magistrate judge, or from the custody of an officer or employee of the United States pursuant to lawful arrest, shall, if the custody or confinement is by virtue of a lawful arrest for a violation of any law of the United States not punishable by death or life imprisonment and committed before such person’s eighteenth birthday, and as to whom the Attorney General has not specifically directed the institution of criminal proceedings, or by virtue of a commitment as a juvenile delinquent under section 5034 of this title, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to affect the discretionary authority vested in the Attorney General pursuant to section 5032 of this title.(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 734; Pub. L. 88–251, § 1, Dec. 30, 1963, 77 Stat. 834; Pub. L. 89–176, § 3, Sept. 10, 1965, 79 Stat. 675; Pub. L. 90–578, title IV, § 402(b)(2), Oct. 17, 1968, 82 Stat. 1118; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7055, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4402; Pub. L. 101–650, title III, § 321, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5117; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), (K), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§ 753h, 909 (May 14, 1930, ch. 274, § 9, 46 Stat. 327; May 27, 1930, ch. 339, § 9, 46 Stat. 390; Aug. 3, 1935, ch. 432, 49 Stat. 513).

Sections 753h and 909 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., were consolidated. Section 753h is later and more comprehensive. The substance of its provisions was adopted.

References to offenses as felonies or misdemeanors were omitted in view of definitive section 1 of this title. (See also reviser’s notes under section 550 of this title.)

Mandatory provision as to separate sentences and order of service was omitted in order to permit court to exercise discretion as to whether sentences should be concurrent or consecutive and to obviate administration problems in enforcement of section.

Words “or employee” were inserted to remove ambiguity as to scope of section.

Reference to “custody or confinement is for extradition” was inserted to avoid possible ambiguity.

Changes were made in phraseology and arrangement.

Editorial NotesAmendments

1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted “fined under this title” for “fined not more than $5,000” after “any offense, be” and for “fined not more than $1,000” after “conviction, be” in subsec. (a) and substituted “fined under this title” for “fined not more than $1,000” in subsec. (b).

1988—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 100–690 inserted “, or for exclusion or expulsion proceedings under the immigration laws,” after “extradition”.

1965—Pub. L. 89–176 inserted “or facility” after “institution”.

1963—Pub. L. 88–251 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsec. (b).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesChange of Name

Words “magistrate judge” substituted for “magistrate” in subsecs. (a) and (b) pursuant to section 321 of Pub. L. 101–650, set out as a note under section 631 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure. Previously, “magistrate” substituted for “commissioner” pursuant to Pub. L. 90–578. See chapter 43 (§ 631 et seq.) of Title 28.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1,091 cases (94 in the last 5 years), 1950–2026 · leading case: United States v. Clifford Bailey, United States of Am. v. Ronald Clifton Cooley, United States of Am. v. Ralph Walker, 585 F.2d 1087 (D.C. Cir. 1978).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Clifford Bailey, United States of Am. v. Ronald Clifton Cooley, United States of Am. v. Ralph Walker, 585 F.2d 1087 (D.C. Cir. 1978). · cites it 25× “SKELLY WRIGHT, Chief Judge: Appellants in these criminal jury cases were convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 751 (a) (1976) 1 by escaping “from the custody of the Attorney General” when they departed from the New Detention Center of the District of Columbia Jail (“Northeast One”)…”

United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394 (1980). · cites it 8× “Upon their apprehension, they were charged with violating 18 U. S. C. § 751 (a), which governs escape from federal custody.”

United States v. Christopher Dickerson, 77 F.3d 774 (4th Cir. 1996). · cites it 11× “OPINION HAMILTON, Circuit Judge: The United States (the government) appeals the sentence of Christopher Dickerson (Dickerson) imposed by the district court following Dickerson’s plea of guilty to felony attempted escape from custody, see 18 U.S.C.A. § 751 (a) (West Supp.1995).…”

United States v. Lonnie Davis, 458 F.3d 505 (6th Cir. 2006). · cites it 6× “Defendant-Appellant Lonnie Davis appeals his sentence for escaping from a community corrections center in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751 (a). Davis asserts that the district court erred by applying a reasonableness standard in determining his sentence rather than “impos[ing] a…”

United States v. Aguila-Montes De Oca, 655 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2011). · cites it 4× “2008) (applying the modified categorical approach even though the crime of conviction, 18 U.S.C. § 751 , did not contain two elements of an obstruction of justice charge).”

United States v. Grayson, 438 U.S. 41 (1978). · cites it 4× “He was indicated for prison escape in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 751 (a) (1976 ed.). During its case in chief, the United States proved the essential elements of the crime, including his lawful confinement and the unlawful escape.”

Castell v. Commonwealth, 461 S.E.2d 438 (Va. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 15× “The driver fled and was later convicted of escape from the custody of a federal officer under 18 U.S.C. § 751 (a). Id. Thus, if "[a] person of ordinary intelligence and understanding would know that he was not free to leave," then he would be in "custody" under 18 U.”

Elonis v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2001 (2015). · cites it 2× “394, 407 (1980) (declining to decide whether mental state of recklessness or negligence could suffice for criminal liability under 18 U. S. C. §751 , even though a “court may someday confront a case” presenting issue); Ginsberg v.”

United States v. Michael Roy, 830 F.2d 628 (7th Cir. 1987). · cites it 7× “Appellant, Michael Roy, appeals from a judgment of conviction for escape from federal custody in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751 . Through counsel, Mr. Roy claims that his indictment should have been dismissed because the government failed to comply with the Interstate Agreement on…”

United States v. Rasheed, 981 F.3d 187 (2d Cir. 2020). · cites it 5× “) for one count of escape, 18 U.S.C. §§ 751 (a), 4082(a). On appeal, 29 Rasheed argues that venue was improper in the Western District of New York, 30 that certain statements to the jury deprived him of a fair trial, and that the 31 District Court erred in calculating his…”

United States v. Donald G. Richardson, 687 F.2d 952 (7th Cir. 1982). · cites it 9× “It is to be noted that with certain variations in language, the 1930 Act embodied categories [1] and [2] as they now appear in 18 U.S.C. § 751 (a), and only [1] and [2], *956 In 1934, the Attorney General requested Congress to amend the 1930 statute.”

United States v. John L. Vickers, 891 F.2d 86 (5th Cir. 1989). · cites it 7× “Vick-ers was subsequently charged with, entered a plea of guilty to, and was convicted of escaping from federal custody in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751 (a). Applying section 2P1.”

Show all 1,091 citing cases →

— 18 U.S.C. § 751(a) — 12 cases

United States v. James Lamont Johnson, 873 F.2d 1137 (8th Cir. 1989).

United States v. Ronnie Knight, 76 F.3d 86 (5th Cir. 1996).

United States v. Anglin, 169 F. App'x 971 (6th Cir. 2006).

Castell v. Commonwealth, 461 S.E.2d 438 (Va. Ct. App. 1995). “The driver fled and was later convicted of escape from the custody of a federal officer under 18 U.S.C. § 751 (a). Id. Thus, if "[a] person of ordinary intelligence and understanding would know that he was not free to leave," then he would be in "custody" under 18 U.”

Demus v. United States, 710 A.2d 858 (D.C. 1998).

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.