34 U.S.C. § 10157

Reserved funds

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 34 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Of the total amount made available to carry out this part for a fiscal year, the Attorney General shall reserve not more than—(1) $20,000,000, for use by the National Institute of Justice in assisting units of local government to identify, select, develop, modernize, and purchase new technologies for use by law enforcement, of which $1,000,000 shall be for use by the Bureau of Justice Statistics to collect data necessary for carrying out this part; and(2) $20,000,000, to be granted by the Attorney General to States and units of local government to develop and implement antiterrorism training programs.(b) Of the total amount made available to carry out this part for a fiscal year, the Attorney General may reserve not more than 5 percent, to be granted to 1 or more States or units of local government, for 1 or more of the purposes specified in section 10152 of this title, pursuant to his determination that the same is necessary—(1) to combat, address, or otherwise respond to precipitous or extraordinary increases in crime, or in a type or types of crime; or(2) to prevent, compensate for, or mitigate significant programmatic harm resulting from operation of the formula established under section 10156 of this title.(Pub. L. 90–351, title I, § 506, as added Pub. L. 109–162, title XI, § 1111(a)(2)(C), Jan. 5, 2006, 119 Stat. 3100.)Editorial NotesCodification

Section was formerly classified to section 3756 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

Prior Provisions

A prior section 506 of title I of Pub. L. 90–351, as added Pub. L. 100–690, title VI, § 6091(a), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4334; amended Pub. L. 101–162, title II, § 212, Nov. 21, 1989, 103 Stat. 998, 1006; Pub. L. 101–302, title III, § 320(c)(1), May 25, 1990, 104 Stat. 248; Pub. L. 101–647, title XVIII, § 1804, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4851; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330001(a), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2138; Pub. L. 107–273, div. A, title II, § 203(a)(2), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1775, related to allocation and distribution of funds under formula grants, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 109–162, title XI, § 1111(a)(1), (d), Jan. 5, 2006, 119 Stat. 3094, 3102, applicable with respect to the first fiscal year beginning after Jan. 5, 2006, and each fiscal year thereafter. See section 10156(a) of this title.

Another prior section 506 of title I of Pub. L. 90–351, formerly § 606, as added Pub. L. 96–157, § 2, Dec. 27, 1979, 93 Stat. 1197; renumbered § 506 and amended Pub. L. 98–473, title II, § 608(d), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2087, related to period for award of discretionary grants, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 100–690, title VI, § 6091(a), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4328.

Another prior section 506 of Pub. L. 90–351, title I, June 19, 1968, 82 Stat. 205, amended section 5316 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section applicable with respect to the first fiscal year beginning after Jan. 5, 2006, and each fiscal year thereafter, see section 1111(d) of Pub. L. 109–162, set out as an Effective Date of 2006 Amendment note under section 10151 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2018–2021 · leading case: City of Los Angeles v. William Barr

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

City of Los Angeles v. William Barr (2019) ca9 · cites it 2× “, 34 U.S.C. § 10157 (b) (allowing the Attorney General to withhold up to five percent of total allocated Byrne JAG funds to address rapid crime increases or “significant programmatic harm” caused by the normal operation of the funding formula); id.”

City of Chicago v. Jefferson B. Sessions III (2018) ca7 “%20%C2%A7%2010157"> 34 U.S.C. § 10157 (b).”

City of Philadelphia v. Attorney General United States (2019) ca3 “…index="54" url="https://cite.case.law/citations/?q=34%20U.S.C.%20%C2%A7%2010157"> 34 U.S.C. § 10157 . This provision, however, authorizes the Attorney General to re-allocate funds only in those two, narrow circumstances. And it only allows the Attorney General to set aside…”

City of Albuquerque v. Barr (2021) nmd · cites it 3× “…or extraordinary increases in crime, or in a type or types of crime….” See 34 U.S.C. §§ 10157 (b)(1). The FY 2018 CGIC grant at issue comes from the Byrne JAG Program’s reserved funds. See (Doc. 1-8) at 5. 1 Those eight programs are: (A)”

City of Chicago v. William P. Barr (2020) ca7 “…programmatic harm resulting from operation of the formula … .” 34 U.S.C. § 10157 (b). Moreo- ver, the Attorney General is authorized by other statutes to reduce the funding in certain circum- stances, but even then the amount of the reduc- tion is set by statute. For…”

State of Oregon v. Trump (2019) ord “…significant programmatic harm resulting from operation of the formula.” 34 U.S.C. § 10157 (b). This discretion is extremely limited: any re- allocation is not to exceed “5 percent” of the “total amount made available” by Congress. Id. Sim”

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.