18 U.S.C. § 963
Detention of armed vessel
(a) During a war in which the United States is a neutral nation, the President, or any person authorized by him, may detain any armed vessel owned wholly or in part by citizens of the United States, or any vessel, domestic or foreign (other than one which has entered the ports of the United States as a public vessel), which is manifestly built for warlike purposes or has been converted or adapted from a private vessel to one suitable for warlike use, until the owner or master, or person having charge of such vessel, shall furnish proof satisfactory to the President, or to the person duly authorized by him, that the vessel will not be employed to cruise against or commit or attempt to commit hostilities upon the subjects, citizens, or property of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people with which the United States is at peace, and that the said vessel will not be sold or delivered to any belligerent nation, or to an agent, officer, or citizen of such nation, by them or any of them, within the jurisdiction of the United States, or upon the high seas.(b) Whoever, in violation of this section takes, or attempts to take, or authorizes the taking of any such vessel, out of port or from the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.In addition, such vessel, her tackle, apparel, furniture, equipment, and her cargo shall be forfeited to the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 746; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)Historical and Revision NotesBased on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§ 32, 36 (June 15, 1917, ch. 30, title V, §§ 2, 6, 40 Stat. 221, 222; Mar. 28, 1940, ch. 72, § 5, 54 Stat. 79).
Section consolidates said sections of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed.
Words “within the United States” were substituted for “within the jurisdiction” etc., in view of the definition of United States in section 5 of this title.
Mandatory punishment provision was rephrased in the alternative.
The conspiracy provision of said section 36 was omitted as covered by section 371 of this title. See reviser’s note under that section.
Changes in phraseology were also made.
Editorial NotesAmendments1994—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 103–322 substituted “fined under this title” for “fined not more than $10,000”.
Executive DocumentsDelegation of FunctionsFor delegation to Secretary of Homeland Security of authority vested in President by this section, see section 1(l) of Ex. Ord. No. 10637, Sept. 16, 1955, 20 F.R. 7025, as amended, set out as a note under section 301 of Title 3, The President.
Notes of Decisions
United States v. Levino Michelena-Orovio (1983)
ca5
“§ 846 and 18 U.S.C. § 963 were part of a congressional revision and recodification of the nation’s narcotics laws “designed to deal in a comprehensive fashion with the growing menace of drug abuse in the United States.”
United States v. Frank Gunnar Williams (1979)
ca5
“Since this indictment was brought under 18 U.S.C. § 963 and we have held that this provision does not require proof of an overt act, United States v.”
United States v. Peter Spitz (1983)
ca11
“PER CURIAM: Spitz appeals his conviction of conspiracy to import marijuana into the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 963 . He does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction, but claims error in the continuation of the poll of the jury after…”
United States v. Silvestri (1986)
ca1
“Appellant Cassidy 3 Cassidy was convicted of (1) conspiracy to import marijuana in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 963 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 ; and (2) conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Rivera-Niebla (2014)
dcd
“Section 3238 provides that: The trial of all offenses begun or committed upon the high seas, or elsewhere out of the jurisdiction of any particular State or district, shall be in the district in which the offender, or any one of two or more joint offenders, is arrested or is…”
United States v. Christopher Plummer (2000)
ca11
“We explained that “‘[b]y its very nature [drug smuggling] involves foreign countries, and ... the accomplishment of the crime always requires some action in a foreign country.”
United States v. Christopher Plummer (2000)
ca11
“Although this Court has not had occasion to adopt Brulay, we did endorse that decision in MacAllister, where we ruled that even in the absence of a clear Congressional statement of intent 18 U.S.C. § 963 could be applied extraterritorially to reach a conspiracy to export cocaine…”
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.