18 U.S.C. § 872
Extortion by officers or employees of the United States
Whoever, being an officer, or employee of the United States or any department or agency thereof, or representing himself to be or assuming to act as such, under color or pretense of office or employment commits or attempts an act of extortion, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; but if the amount so extorted or demanded does not exceed $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 65
cases (20 in the last 5 years), 1953–2026 · leading case: United States v. Valle, 538 F.3d 341 (5th Cir. 2008).
United States v. Valle, 538 F.3d 341 (5th Cir. 2008). “§ 201 (b)(2)(C), and one count of extortion, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 872 . He was tried by a jury.”
Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255 (1992). “Compare 18 U. S. C. § 872 (" [e]xtortion by officers or employees of the United States" (emphasis added), which criminalizes extortion by federal officials, and makes no provision for punishment of the payor), with 18 U.”
United States v. Katherine Bordallo Aguon, 851 F.2d 1158 (9th Cir. 1988). “§ 876 (mailing with intent to extort); 18 U.S.C. § 872 (extortion by federal officials).”
McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257 (1991). “18 U. S. C. § 872 (criminalizing extortion by federal officials, making no provision for punishment of person extorted).”
United States v. F. Thomas Little, United States of Am. v. Peter Chernik, United States of Am. v. Harold Grutchfield, 753 F.2d 1420 (9th Cir. 1985). “Appellants assert that the threat “appears” to be a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 872 . Appellants clearly lack standing to assert the witness’s rights.”
Abell v. Sothen, 214 F. App'x 743 (10th Cir. 2007). “Sothen) and his coworkers, “from his personal pay and assets, and not from the government or from the United States as Defendant,” as a result of an alleged “pattern of harassment, intimidation, violation of due process (Fifth Amendment), extortion under the color of law ( 18…”
United States v. Michael Kimbrew, 944 F.3d 810 (9th Cir. 2019). “KIMBREW OPINION NGUYEN, Circuit Judge: Michael Kimbrew appeals his convictions and sentence for attempted extortion by an employee of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 872 , and bribery of a public official, in violation of 18 U.”
Gipson v. Callahan, 18 F. Supp. 2d 662 (W.D. Tex. 1997). “18 U.S.C. § 872 , EXTORTION BY OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES Title 18 U.”
Cox v. United States, 105 Fed. Cl. 213 (Fed. Cl. 2012). “In particular, they contend that the United States blackmailed judges, IRS criminal investigators, and United States Attorneys, and violated 18 U.S.C. § 872 (“Extortion by officers or employees of the United States”) and 18 U.”
United States of Am., in No. 95-1109 v. Robert Boggi, in No. 95-1031, 74 F.3d 470 (3d Cir. 1996). “1 also applies to extortion by officers or employees of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 872 , and Hobbs Act extortion, or attempted extortion, under color of official right, in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Sienky Lallemand, 989 F.2d 936 (7th Cir. 1993). “18 U.S.C. §§ 872 , 875(b); U.S.S.G. §§ 2B3.”
United States v. Autumn Jackson, Boris Sabas, Also Known as Boris Shmulevich, & Jose Medina, Also Known as Yosi Medina, 180 F.3d 55 (2d Cir. 1999). “” 18 U.S.C. § 872 . Since § 872 contains no pertinent qualifying language, it seems plain that Congress views “extortion” as wrongful.”
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.