U.S. Code » Title 42 » Chapter CHAPTER 23— DEVELOPMENT AND CONTROL OF ATOMIC ENERGY › Division Division A— Atomic Energy › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER XVII— ENFORCEMENT OF CHAPTER

42 U.S.C. § 2278a

Trespass on Commission installations

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Issuance and posting of regulations(1) The Commission is authorized to issue regulations relating to the entry upon or carrying, transporting, or otherwise introducing or causing to be introduced any dangerous weapon, explosive, or other dangerous instrument or material likely to produce substantial injury or damage to persons or property, into or upon any facility, installation, or real property subject to the jurisdiction, administration, in the custody of the Commission, or subject to the licensing authority of the Commission or certification by the Commission under this chapter or any other Act.(2) Every such regulation of the Commission shall be posted conspicuously at the location involved.(b) Penalty for violation of regulations

Whoever shall willfully violate any regulation of the Commission issued pursuant to subsection (a) shall, upon conviction thereof, be punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000.

(c) Penalty for violation of regulations regarding enclosed property

Whoever shall willfully violate any regulation of the Commission issued pursuant to subsection (a) with respect to any installation or other property which is enclosed by a fence, wall, floor, roof, or other structural barrier shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not to exceed $5,000 or to imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.

(Aug. 1, 1946, ch. 724, title I, § 229, as added Aug. 6, 1956, ch. 1015, § 6, 70 Stat. 1070; renumbered title I, Pub. L. 102–486, title IX, § 902(a)(8), Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2944; amended Pub. L. 109–58, title VI, § 654, Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 812.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (a)(1), was in the original “this Act”, meaning act Aug. 1, 1946, ch. 724, as added by act Aug. 30, 1954, ch. 1073, § 1, 68 Stat. 919, known as the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2011 of this title and Tables.

Amendments

2005—Pub. L. 109–58, § 654(1), (2), substituted “on” for “upon” in section catchline and realigned margins.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 109–58, § 654(3), designated first sentence as par. (1), substituted “in the custody of the Commission, or subject to the licensing authority of the Commission or certification by the Commission under this chapter or any other Act” for “or in the custody of the Commission”, and designated second sentence as par. (2).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases, 1960–2015 · leading case: United States v. Thompson, 687 F.2d 1279 (10th Cir. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Thompson, 687 F.2d 1279 (10th Cir. 1982). · cites it 14× “All legislative or substantive rules issued pursuant to a delegation of congressional *1291 authority — in this case, 42 U.S.C. § 2278a— and having the force of law are subject to the requirements of APA § 553 unless otherwise exempt.”
United States v. Best, 476 F. Supp. 34 (D. Colo. 1979). · cites it 5× “” 42 U.S.C. § 2278a provides: “(a) The Commission is authorized to issue regulations relating to the entry upon or carrying, transporting, or otherwise introducing or causing to be introduced any dangerous weapon, explosive, or other dangerous instrument or material likely to…”
Goldberg v. Hendrick, 254 F. Supp. 286 (E.D. Pa. 1966). · cites it 5× “§ 4954, has been pre-empted by a 1956 amendment to the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2278a, by virtue of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, U.”
United States v. Karin L. Dukehart, Jeffrey Joe Hinton, & Chuck Dearborn David, Defendants, 687 F.2d 1301 (10th Cir. 1982). · cites it 2× “Government ownership of a nonexclusive easement at the arrest site is an insufficient possessory interest in land to sustain a conviction for trespass upon “real property” in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2278a and 10 C.F.R. § 860.3 .”
United States v. Elizabeth Ann Lentsch Timothy Joseph Mellen, 369 F.3d 948 (6th Cir. 2004). · cites it 3× “any facility, installation, or real property subject to the jurisdiction, administration, or in the custody of the Commission.”
United States v. Jacqueline Peters & Pamela Teller, 687 F.2d 1295 (10th Cir. 1982). · cites it 2× “Government ownership of a nonexclusive easement at the arrest site is an insufficient possessory interest in land to sustain a conviction for trespass upon “real property” in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2278a and 10 C.F.R. § 860.3 .”
United States v. Ward Richard McAlister, 630 F.2d 772 (10th Cir. 1980). “42 U.S.C. § 2278a(a), (b); 10 C.F.R. §§ 860.”
United States v. Steve Robert Grose & Patrick Alexander Malone, 687 F.2d 1298 (10th Cir. 1982). · cites it 2× “These are part of a series of eighty-six appeals from convictions for violating 42 U.S.C. §§ 2278a(a) and (b) and 10 C.F.”
United States v. Michael Walli, 785 F.3d 1080 (6th Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “The government eventually charged them with trespassing in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2278a(c) and injuring government property in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Seward, 687 F.2d 1270 (10th Cir. 1982). “These are part of a series of eighty-six appeals from convictions for violating 42 U.S.C. §§ 2278a(a) and (b) and 10 C.F.”
United States v. Hueftle, 687 F.2d 1305 (10th Cir. 1982). “These are part of a series of eighty-six appeals from convictions for violating 42 U.S.C. §§ 2278a(a) and (b) and 10 C.F.”
Earle L. Reynolds v. United States, 286 F.2d 433 (9th Cir. 1960). · cites it 2× “§ 229, 42 U.S. C.A. § 2278a. The Government takes the position that § 161(i) authorizes any and all regulations designed to protect Restricted Data, to guard against loss or misuse of special nuclear material, or to protect health and safety, in connection with any activity…”
Show all 22 citing cases →
— 42 U.S.C. § 2278a(a) — 15 cases
United States v. Thompson, 687 F.2d 1279 (10th Cir. 1982). “All legislative or substantive rules issued pursuant to a delegation of congressional *1291 authority — in this case, 42 U.S.C. § 2278a— and having the force of law are subject to the requirements of APA § 553 unless otherwise exempt.”
United States v. Ward Richard McAlister, 630 F.2d 772 (10th Cir. 1980). “42 U.S.C. § 2278a(a), (b); 10 C.F.R. §§ 860.”
United States v. Karin L. Dukehart, Jeffrey Joe Hinton, & Chuck Dearborn David, Defendants, 687 F.2d 1301 (10th Cir. 1982). “Government ownership of a nonexclusive easement at the arrest site is an insufficient possessory interest in land to sustain a conviction for trespass upon “real property” in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2278a and 10 C.F.R. § 860.3 .”
United States v. Seward, 687 F.2d 1270 (10th Cir. 1982). “These are part of a series of eighty-six appeals from convictions for violating 42 U.S.C. §§ 2278a(a) and (b) and 10 C.F.”
United States v. Jacqueline Peters & Pamela Teller, 687 F.2d 1295 (10th Cir. 1982). “Government ownership of a nonexclusive easement at the arrest site is an insufficient possessory interest in land to sustain a conviction for trespass upon “real property” in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2278a and 10 C.F.R. § 860.3 .”
— 42 U.S.C. § 2278a(b) — 1 case
United States v. Steve Robert Grose & Patrick Alexander Malone, 687 F.2d 1298 (10th Cir. 1982). “These are part of a series of eighty-six appeals from convictions for violating 42 U.S.C. §§ 2278a(a) and (b) and 10 C.F.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 2278a(c) — 3 cases
United States v. Elizabeth Ann Lentsch Timothy Joseph Mellen, 369 F.3d 948 (6th Cir. 2004). “any facility, installation, or real property subject to the jurisdiction, administration, or in the custody of the Commission.”
United States v. Michael Walli, 785 F.3d 1080 (6th Cir. 2015). “The government eventually charged them with trespassing in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2278a(c) and injuring government property in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Mellen (6th Cir. 2004).
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.