U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART VI— PARTICULAR PROCEEDINGS › Chapter CHAPTER 163— FINES, PENALTIES AND FORFEITURES

28 U.S.C. § 2

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Findings.—The Congress finds that—“(1) the power of Federal agencies to impose civil monetary penalties for violations of Federal law and regulations plays an important role in deterring violations and furthering the policy goals embodied in such laws and regulations;“(2) the impact of many civil monetary penalties has been and is diminished due to the effect of inflation;“(3) by reducing the impact of civil monetary penalties, inflation has weakened the deterrent effect of such penalties; and“(4) the Federal Government does not maintain comprehensive, detailed accounting of the efforts of Federal agencies to assess and collect civil monetary penalties.“(b)Purpose.—The purpose of this Act is to establish a mechanism that shall—“(1) allow for regular adjustment for inflation of civil monetary penalties;“(2) maintain the deterrent effect of civil monetary penalties and promote compliance with the law; and“(3) improve the collection by the Federal Government of civil monetary penalties.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: United States v. Certain Real Est. Prop. Located at 4880 S.E. Dixie High., Etc., 838 F.2d 1558 (11th Cir. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Certain Real Est. Prop. Located at 4880 S.E. Dixie High., Etc., 838 F.2d 1558 (11th Cir. 1988). “” 28 U.S.C. § 2 (d)(2)(A). The government challenges the award of hourly rates in excess of the qualified $75.”
United States v. State of California & California State Bd. of Equalization, 932 F.2d 1346 (9th Cir. 1991). “28 U.S.C. § 2 ^15 and the quasi-contract claim Initially, the United States brought this action for declaratory relief, essentially, for a refund of monies paid to WBEC for the tax assessments.”
United States v. Sutton, 803 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2011). “§§ 841 (a)(1), 841(b)(l)(B)(iii), and of Aiding and Abetting in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 2 . 4 See Indictment (“Indict.”
In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Issued to Nixon, 360 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1973). “, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2 , 44(c), 144, 1731-1745, 2403; 18 U.”
Panola Land Buying Ass'n v. Clark, 844 F.2d 1506 (11th Cir. 1988). “APPENDIX I STATUTE 28 U.S.C. § 2 ^12. Costs and fees (a) ...”
United States v. John Henoud, 714 F. App'x 273 (4th Cir. 2018). “28 U.S.C. § 2¿53(e)(l)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
Tyner v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin. (D. Ariz. 2021). “29) In the pending motion, the plaintiff’s counsel moves for an order allowing 25 him 25 percent of the claimant’s past-due benefit award pursuant to their contingent-fee 26 agreement, less the amount already awarded under the EAJA. The Commissioner filed a 27 response to the…”
Rossana Figuerola v. Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co. (C.D. Cal. 2020). “On August 9, 27 2019, plaintiff filed a Request for Dismissal of Hometown, a California citizen, which the Clerk 28 entered the same day. (See id.”
Carlton Sims v. Jasmin Herrera (C.D. Cal. 2020). “1 (providing for motion for relief from final order or judgment); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2 1291 (providing, as relevant, that United States Courts of Appeal “shall have 3 jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United 4 States .”
Ramundie O Brown v. Brian Duffy (C.D. Cal. 2021). “” 28 U.S.C. § 2 2244(b)(3)(A). A district court does not have jurisdiction to consider a “second or 3 successive” petition absent authorization from the Ninth Circuit.”
Schechter v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (M.D. Fla. 2020). “In the Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Tuite recommends that: (1) Plaintiff’s Petition for EAJA Fees Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2 [4]12 (Doc. 25) be granted;1 (2) Plaintiff be awarded $8,614.”
Varnes v. Nagy (E.D. Mich. 2020). “28 U.S.C. § 2 +254(d). The focus of this standard “is not whether a federal court believes the state court’s determination was incorrect but whether that determination was unreasonable—a substantially higher threshold.”
Show all 23 citing cases →
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.