21 U.S.C. § 886

Payments and advances

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 21 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Payment to informers

The Attorney General is authorized to pay any person, from funds appropriated for the Drug Enforcement Administration, for information concerning a violation of this subchapter, such sum or sums of money as he may deem appropriate, without reference to any moieties or rewards to which such person may otherwise be entitled by law.

(b) Reimbursement for purchase of controlled substances

Moneys expended from appropriations of the Drug Enforcement Administration for purchase of controlled substances and subsequently recovered shall be reimbursed to the current appropriation for the Administration.11 See Codification note below.

The Attorney General is authorized to direct the advance of funds by the Treasury Department in connection with the enforcement of this subchapter.

(d) Drug Pollution Fund(1) There is established in the Treasury a trust fund to be known as the “Drug Pollution Fund” (hereinafter referred to in this subsection as the “Fund”), consisting of amounts appropriated or credited to such Fund under section 841(b)(6) of this title.(2) There are hereby appropriated to the Fund amounts equivalent to the fines imposed under section 841(b)(6) of this title.(3) Amounts in the Fund shall be available, as provided in appropriations Acts, for the purpose of making payments in accordance with paragraph (4) for the clean up of certain pollution resulting from the actions referred to in section 841(b)(6) of this title.(4)(A) The Secretary of the Treasury, after consultation with the Attorney General, shall make payments under paragraph (3), in such amounts as the Secretary determines appropriate, to the heads of executive agencies or departments that meet the requirements of subparagraph (B).(B) In order to receive a payment under paragraph (3), the head of an executive agency or department shall submit an application in such form and containing such information as the Secretary of the Treasury shall by regulation require. Such application shall contain a description of the fine imposed under section 841(b)(6) of this title, the circumstances surrounding the imposition of such fine, and the type and severity of pollution that resulted from the actions to which such fine applies.(5) For purposes of subchapter B of chapter 98 of title 26, the Fund established under this paragraph shall be treated in the same manner as a trust fund established under subchapter A of such chapter.(Pub. L. 91–513, title II, § 516, Oct. 27, 1970, 84 Stat. 1279; Pub. L. 96–132, § 16(b), Nov. 30, 1979, 93 Stat. 1049; Pub. L. 100–690, title VI, § 6254(i), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4367.)Editorial NotesCodification

In subsec. (b), “Administration” substituted for “Bureau” as the probable intent of Congress in view of amendment by Pub. L. 96–132, which substituted references to the Drug Enforcement Administration for references to the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs wherever appearing in text.

Amendments

1988—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 100–690 added subsec. (d).

1979—Subsecs. (a), (b). Pub. L. 96–132 substituted “Drug Enforcement Administration” for “Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesReimbursement by Drug Enforcement Administration of Expenses Incurred To Remediate Methamphetamine Laboratories

Pub. L. 106–310, div. B, title XXXVI, § 3672, Oct. 17, 2000, 114 Stat. 1246, provided that:“(a)Reimbursement Authorized.—The Attorney General, acting through the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, may reimburse States, units of local government, Indian tribal governments, other public entities, and multi-jurisdictional or regional consortia thereof for expenses incurred to clean up and safely dispose of substances associated with clandestine methamphetamine laboratories which may present a danger to public health or the environment.“(b)Additional DEA Personnel.—From amounts appropriated or otherwise made available to carry out this section, the Attorney General may hire not more than five additional Drug Enforcement Administration personnel to administer this section.“(c)Authorization of Appropriations.—There is authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney General to carry out this section $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2001.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 25 cases, 1975–2011 · leading case: Hopi Tribe v. United States, 55 Fed. Cl. 81 (Fed. Cl. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hopi Tribe v. United States, 55 Fed. Cl. 81 (Fed. Cl. 2002). · cites it 6× “515, 518 , 1981 WL 22043 (1981) (ruling that 21 U.S.C. § 886 (a) “plainly places the payment of any sum entirely within the discretion of the Attorney General .”

Allen v. United States, 229 Ct. Cl. 515 (Ct. Cl. 1981). · cites it 7× “Summary judgment is appropriate for defendant in that Agents Weed and Story lacked authority to bind the United States.”

Hoch v. United States, 33 Fed. Cl. 39 (Fed. Cl. 1995). · cites it 5× “515, 518 , 1981 WL 22043 (1981) (holding that language of 21 U.S.C. § 886 (a) (1976) “plainly places the payment .”

Sarlund v. United States, 39 Fed. Cl. 803 (Fed. Cl. 1998). · cites it 5× “Awards under the narcotics laws pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 886 (a) are discretionary, so plaintiff has not stated a claim upon which relief may be granted.”

United States v. MacUla Anty, 203 F.3d 305 (4th Cir. 2000). · cites it 2× “§ 1619 (authorizing rewards for “information” regarding violations of custom laws); 21 U.S.C. § 886 (a) (authorizing payments in connection with drug enforcement of “such sum or sums of money as [the Attorney General] may deem appropriate, without reference to any moieties or…”

Clay v. United States Dep't of Just., 680 F. Supp. 2d 239 (D.D.C. 2010). “§ 201 (d), and 21 U.S.C. § 886 (a) specifically authorizes “[t]he Attorney General .”

United States v. Clarence Hendrix, 482 F.3d 962 (7th Cir. 2007). “§ 3059B; 21 U.S.C. § 886 (a). We have stated, however, that Judges are in no position to evaluate the government’s need to offer monetary or other inducements to the criminals whom it hopes to enlist in the “war against drugs.”

Nicolas v. United States, 35 Fed. Cl. 387 (Fed. Cl. 1996). · cites it 3× “See 21 U.S.C. § 886 (a) (1994) (authorizing payment to informer of “such sum or sums of money as [Attorney General] may deem appropriate”) and Allen v.”

Thomas Taylor v. United States, 550 F.2d 983 (4th Cir. 1977). · cites it 2× “Under the authority of 21 U.S.C. § 886 , Taylor and his fellow seaman were paid $150 for their services by DEA, but further demands for payment made to the United States Attorney, the Secretary of the Treasury and the United States Customs Office were rejected.”

United States v. Levenite, 277 F.3d 454 (4th Cir. 2002). · cites it 2× “, 21 U.S.C. § 886 (a) (authorizing payments in connection with drug enforcement of “such sum or sums of money as [the Attorney General] may deem appropriate, without reference to any moieties or rewards to which such person may otherwise be entitled by law”); 18 U.”

Garza v. United States, 34 Fed. Cl. 1 (Fed. Cl. 1995). “§ 3059 (1988); 21 U.S.C. § 886 (1988); 22 U.S.C. § 401 (1988).”

Robert W. Baucom v. John R. Martin, as Dist. Attorney Pro Tem, Stone Mountain Jud. Circuit, Georgia, 677 F.2d 1346 (11th Cir. 1982). “It may be argued that narcotic purchases are specifically authorized by statute, 21 U.S.C. § 886 (b), for moneys are appropriated for purchases, but the statute gives no explicit authority to purchase narcotics in states where purchase may be illegal.”

Show all 25 citing cases →

— 21 U.S.C. § 886(a) — 1 case

Auth. of the Customs Serv. to Offer Rewards for Info. Concerning the Whereabouts of Indicted Drug Traffickers (OLC 1989).

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.