49 U.S.C. § 5124
Criminal penalty
Historical and Revision Notes | ||
|---|---|---|
Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
5124 | 49 App.:1809(b). | Jan. 3, 1975, Pub. L. 93–633, § 110(b), 88 Stat. 2161; restated Nov. 16, 1990, Pub. L. 101–615, § 12(b), 104 Stat. 3259. |
2005—Pub. L. 109–59 reenacted section catchline without change and amended text generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “A person knowingly violating section 5104(b) of this title or willfully violating this chapter or a regulation prescribed or order issued under this chapter shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.”
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1997–2025 · leading case: United States v. Job, 871 F.3d 852 (9th Cir. 2017).
United States v. Job, 871 F.3d 852 (9th Cir. 2017). “§ 9603 (b); or 49 U.S.C. § 5124 .” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 cmt.”
United States v. Sauseda, 596 F.3d 279 (5th Cir. 2010). “§ 9603 (b); or 49 U.S.C. § 5124 (relating to violations of laws and regulations enforced by the Department of Transportation with respect to the transportation of hazardous material).”
United States v. Anthony Richard Kinard, 472 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2006). “§ 9603 (b), or 49 U.S.C. § 5124 . To apply the enhancement where no such statutory violation has been found would render the limitations imposed in the Application Note “essentially meaningless,” because the enhancement would apply to all conduct causing anhydrous ammonia to be…”
United States v. Sabretech, Inc., 271 F.3d 1018 (11th Cir. 2001). “49 U.S.C. § 5124 (1994). The jury did, however, find SabreTech guilty of recklessly causing the transportation of hazardous material in air commerce.”
United States v. Thomas Kuzma, 967 F.3d 959 (9th Cir. 2020). “, 49 U.S.C. § 5124 (a) (imposing 10 The facial invalidations in these three cases do, however, refute the Government’s assertion that, outside the First Amendment context, only as-applied vagueness challenges may be considered.”
United States v. Holmes, 646 F.3d 659 (9th Cir. 2011). “[10] 49 U.S.C. § 5124 ; see U.S.S.G. § 2Q1.2(b)(7).”
United States v. Travis Job, 851 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 2017). “§ 9603 (b); or 49 U.S.C. § 5124 .” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 cmt.”
United States v. Robert Landmesser, 378 F.3d 308 (3rd Cir. 2004). “The Sentencing Commission likely intended to reference 49 U.S.C. § 5124 . 6 . Compare U.S.S.G. § 2Q1.”
Chem. Mfrs. Ass'n v. Dep't of Transp. & United States of Am., the Fertilizer Inst., Intervenor For, 105 F.3d 702 (D.C. Cir. 1997). “Arguably, a criminal prosecution under 49 U.S.C. § 5124 could also be described as a proceeding to enforce the regulation.”
United States v. Hagerman, 525 F. Supp. 2d 1058 (S.D. Ind. 2007). “(7) If the defendant was convicted under 49 U.S.C. § 5124 or § 46312, increase by 2 levels.”
United States v. Isac Schwarzbaum, 127 F.4th 259 (11th Cir. 2025). “§ 2424 (a) (harboring an alien for the purpose of prostitution); 49 U.S.C. § 5124 (a) (transporting or tampering with hazardous materials); 49 U.”
Nat'l Power Corp. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 864 F.3d 529 (7th Cir. 2017). “The Administrator found that section 5123(a) requires only knowledge of the facts giving rise to the violation, and that knowledge of the law is required for willful violations, as defined by 49 U.S.C. § 5124 (c). National Power contends that a knowing violation requires the…”
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.