49 U.S.C. § 46504
Interference with flight crew members and attendants
An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 64
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1997–2026 · leading case: United States v. Gonzalez, 492 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2007).
United States v. Gonzalez, 492 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2007). “Gonzalez pled guilty to interference with a flight crew member in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 46504 . He appeals the district court's decision to impose a nine-level sentencing enhancement for reckless endangerment of the aircraft under the advisory United States Sentencing…”
United States v. David Diaz, 865 F.3d 168 (4th Cir. 2017). “After pleading guilty in an open plea to violating 49 U.S.C. § 46504 , interference with flight crew members and attendants, the district court was tasked with deciding whether to impose restitution, and, if imposed, how much restitution would be appropriate.”
United States v. Javid Naghani, 361 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 2004). “A jury nonetheless convicted him, and the district court sentenced him to 33 months imprisonment for interfering with the duties of flight attendants in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 46504 . Naghani now appeals on five grounds, arguing that: (1) § 46504 is unconstitutionally void for…”
United States v. Alvenis Arias-Izquierdo, 449 F.3d 1168 (11th Cir. 2006). “§ 46502 (a)(1)(A) (“Count 2”); (3) conspiracy to interfere with a flight crew, in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 46504 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (“Count 3”); and (4) interference with a flight crew, in violation of 49 U.”
Eid v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 621 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2010). “) [11] According to Alaska, Captain Swanigan believed plaintiffs' conduct violated 49 U.S.C. § 46504 (interference with flight crew members and attendants).”
United States v. Lynch, 881 F.3d 812 (10th Cir. 2018). “A jury found Defendant Joseph Wayne Lynch II guilty of violating 49 U.S.C. § 46504 , which prohibits the in-flight assault or intimidation of a flight crew member or flight attendant that interferes yñth his or her duties.”
United States v. Lamons, 532 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2008). “Count 1 charged La-mons with violating 49 U.S.C. § 46504 by interfering with the crew members of Co-mair Flight 5491, namely by intimidating them through the setting of fire to the aircraft.”
Wallaesa v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 824 F.3d 1071 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “” In the third counterargument, amicus contends that Congress implicitly barred the FAA from outlawing passenger misbehavior when it enacted a statute criminalizing limited forms of interference, 49 U.S.C. § 46504 . Section 46504 applies to “[a]n individual .”
United States v. Thomas Cameron Kincade, 379 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 2004). “§ 248 ; interference with an aviation flight crew member or flight attendant, 49 U.S.C. § 46504 ; interference with or intimidation of federal meat, poultry, or poultry products inspectors, 21 U.”
United States v. Grossman, 131 F.3d 1449 (11th Cir. 1997). “Grossman (“Gross-man”) appeals his conviction for violation of 49 U.S.C. § 46504 , which prohibits interfering with the performance of a flight attendant’s duties.”
United States v. Delis, 558 F.3d 177 (2d Cir. 2009). “A complaint was initially filed charging Delis with assaulting a flight crew member in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 46504 . Subsequently, the Government filed a misdemeanor information charging Delis with simple assault in violation of 18 U.”
Travis Seals v. Brandon McBee, 898 F.3d 587 (5th Cir. 2018). “28 Section 1472 has been succeeded by 49 U.S.C. § 46504 , which is materially similar for constitutional purposes.”
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.