34 U.S.C. § 40914

Penalties for noncompliance

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

(a) Attorney General report(1) In general

Not later than January 31 of each year, the Attorney General shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report on the progress of the States in automating the databases containing information described under sections 40912 and 40913 of this title, and in providing that information pursuant to the requirements of sections 40912 and 40913 of this title.

(2) Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Justice, such funds as may be necessary to carry out paragraph (1).

(b) Penalties(1) Discretionary reduction(A) During the 2-year period beginning 3 years after January 8, 2008, the Attorney General may withhold not more than 3 percent of the amount that would otherwise be allocated to a State under section 10156 of this title if the State provides less than 50 percent of the records required to be provided under sections 40912 and 40913 of this title.(B) During the 5-year period after the expiration of the period referred to in subparagraph (A), the Attorney General may withhold not more than 4 percent of the amount that would otherwise be allocated to a State under section 10156 of this title if the State provides less than 70 percent of the records required to be provided under sections 40912 and 40913 of this title.(2) Mandatory reduction

After the expiration of the periods referred to in paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall withhold 5 percent of the amount that would otherwise be allocated to a State under section 10156 of this title, if the State provides less than 90 percent of the records required to be provided under sections 40912 and 40913 of this title.

(3) Waiver by Attorney General

The Attorney General may waive the applicability of paragraph (2) to a State if the State provides substantial evidence, as determined by the Attorney General, that the State is making a reasonable effort to comply with the requirements of sections 40912 and 40913 of this title, including an inability to comply due to court order or other legal restriction.

Any funds that are not allocated to a State because of the failure of the State to comply with the requirements of this chapter shall be reallocated to States that meet such requirements.

(d) Methodology

The method established to calculate the number of records to be reported, as set forth in section 40912(b)(1)(A) of this title, and State compliance with the required level of reporting under sections 40912 and 40913 of this title shall be determined by the Attorney General. The Attorney General shall calculate the methodology based on the total number of records to be reported from all subcategories of records, as described in section 40912(b)(1)(C) of this title.

(Pub. L. 110–180, title I, § 104, Jan. 8, 2008, 121 Stat. 2568.)Editorial NotesCodification

Section was formerly classified in a note under section 922 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 2019–2020 · leading case: City of Philadelphia v. Attorney General United States

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

City of Philadelphia v. Attorney General United States (2019) ca3 “See 34 U.S.C. § 40914 (b)(1). A mandatory reduction of five percent of Byrne JAG funds will occur if there are egregious violations.”

State of Colorado, The v. United States Department of Justice (2020) cod · cites it 2× “DOJ contends that the 7 See 34 U.S.C. § 40914 (b) (authorizing or requiring the Attorney General to withhold a specified percentage of the amount that would otherwise be allocated under Byrne JAG if a state fails to meet certain requirements of the National Instant Criminal…”

State of Oregon v. Trump (2019) ord “, 34 U.S.C. § 40914 (b)(1) (imposing up to a four-percent penalty if a grantee abstains from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System); id.”

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.