18 U.S.C. § 8
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 62
cases (34 in the last 5 years), 1966–2026 · leading case: Williams v. United States, 458 U.S. 279 (1982).
Williams v. United States, 458 U.S. 279 (1982). “Furthermore, as evidenced by other provisions of Title 18, including the general definitional section, 18 U. S. C. § 8 , a check is a type of "security.”
United States v. Anthony Edward Anzalone & Angelo Rios, 626 F.2d 239 (2d Cir. 1980). “As can be seen by the above account, Rios’s only actions connected with the overall series of transactions were accepting the call from the Secret Service agent in reference to counterfeit currency and putting the agent on the telephone with his “uncle,” Anzalone. DISCUSSION…”
United States v. Sims, 428 F.3d 945 (10th Cir. 2005). “Although this same statute is not at issue in this case, the Court’s reasoning supports our conclusion that the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that real children are depicted in the images giving rise to a § 2252(a)(1) prosecution.”
United States v. Josephine Ledezma (92-6683) & Terry Zajac (93-5182), 26 F.3d 636 (6th Cir. 1994). “Perhaps Zajac might well have been charged and convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 8 as an accessory after the fact, or on some other theory, see Sharon C.”
United States v. Hanzlicek, 187 F.3d 1228 (10th Cir. 1999). “” - 18 U.S.C. § 8 . The instrument involved in the indictment was purportedly drawn on the ‘ Treasurer united [sic] States of America” and “Redeemable at office of Postmaster.”
United States v. John F. Grismore, 546 F.2d 844 (10th Cir. 1976). “” 18 U.S.C.A. § 8 . Congress has thus specifically included federal reserve notes within the purview of 18 U.”
United States v. Leonard Bingham (94-4330) Terrance B. Bagley (95-3006) Josephus M. Petaway (95-3171) Craig S. Houston (95-3173), 81 F.3d 617 (6th Cir. 1996). “Conviction for Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 8 1/.1 (a)(1). Count 14 charged defendant Bagley with knowingly and intentionally possessing with intent to distribute approximately 17 grams of a mixture or substance containing cocaine base or crack in violation of 21 U.”
United States v. Shannon Blake Triplett, 922 F.2d 1174 (5th Cir. 1991). “The evidence was sufficient to show that Triplett was an accessory after the fact in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 8 in connection with Richard Snyder’s offense.”
Urena-Ramirez v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 51 (1st Cir. 2003). “955 (BIA 1997) (holding that the crime of being an accessory after the fact, 18 U.S.C. § 8 , does not relate to an antecedent controlled substance offense because it “takes place subsequent to the completion of the underlying felony” and is not “punishable equally as the…”
United States v. Jack Edward Galardi, United States of Am. v. Angel Jerrold Galardi, United States of Am. v. Peter Michael Lafkas, 476 F.2d 1072 (9th Cir. 1973). “§ 261 defining “obligation or other security of the United States” mentioned in the initial legislation is now 18 U.S.C. § 8 . 5 To be noted is the fact that the language of the present exclusion “.”
Boggs v. Bowron, 842 F. Supp. 542 (D.D.C. 1993). “However, 18 U.S.C. § 8 provides the definitions of “obligation” and “security” as used in section 474.”
John Eugene Kniess v. United States, 413 F.2d 752 (9th Cir. 1969). “premised upon a narrow, literal reading of section 472: Since this section outlaws passing or uttering a counterfeit “obligation or other security of the United States,” and since Congress defines “obligation or other security” as “bills, checks, or drafts for money, drawn by or…”
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.