U.S. Code » Title 7 » Chapter CHAPTER 9— PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER II— PACKERS GENERALLY › Part Part A— General Provisions

7 U.S.C. § 195

Punishment for violation of order

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 7 CasesGoogle Scholar
Any packer or swine contractor, or any officer, director, agent, or employee of a packer or swine contractor, who fails to obey any order of the Secretary issued under the provisions of section 193 of this title, or such order as modified—(1) After the expiration of the time allowed for filing a petition in the court of appeals to set aside or modify such order, if no such petition has been filed within such time; or(2) After the expiration of the time allowed for applying for a writ of certiorari, if such order, or such order as modified, has been sustained by the court of appeals and no such writ has been applied for within such time; or(3) After such order, or such order as modified, has been sustained by the courts as provided in section 194 of this title; shall on conviction be fined not less than $500 nor more than $10,000, or imprisoned for not less than six months nor more than five years, or both. Each day during which such failure continues shall be deemed a separate offense.(Aug. 15, 1921, ch. 64, title II, § 205, 42 Stat. 163; June 25, 1948, ch. 646, § 32(a), 62 Stat. 991; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, § 127, 63 Stat. 107; Pub. L. 107–171, title X, § 10502(b)(1), May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 509.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2002—Pub. L. 107–171 substituted “packer or swine contractor” for “packer” in two places in introductory provisions.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesChange of Name

Act June 25, 1948, as amended by act May 24, 1949, substituted “court of appeals” for “circuit court of appeals”, wherever appearing in this section.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1969–2011 · leading case: United States v. Rubashkin, 655 F.3d 849 (8th Cir. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Rubashkin, 655 F.3d 849 (8th Cir. 2011). “§ 1014; and twenty counts of willful violations of orders of the Secretary of Agriculture under the Packers Act and aiding and abetting the same, 7 U.S.C. § 195 , 18 U.S.C. § 2 (collectively the financial counts).”
United States v. Polizzi, 549 F. Supp. 2d 308 (E.D.N.Y 2008). “§ 15b(k) Violating provisions of cotton futures contract regulation 30 days 7 U.S.C. § 195 (3) Violation of court order by packer or swine contractor 6 months concerning packers and stockyards 7 U.”
United States v. The J. B. Williams Co., Inc., & Parkson Advert. Agency, Inc., 498 F.2d 414 (2d Cir. 1974). “The provision of the former,' 7 U.S.C. § 195 , is clearly criminal and therefore has no relevance here, unless it is seen as a general reference to the fact that criminal sanctions were included in the Wheeler-Lea Amendments.”
United States v. Rubashkin, 718 F. Supp. 2d 953 (N.D. Iowa 2010). “Counts 144 through 163 charged Defendant with Willful Violation of an Order of the Secretary of Agriculture and Aiding and Abetting a Willful Violation of an Order of the Secretary of Agriculture, in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 195 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (“Packers and Stockyards Act…”
Arkansas Valley Indus., Inc. v. Freeman, 415 F.2d 713 (8th Cir. 1969). · cites it 2× “§ 194 , as well as § 205 of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 195 , which provides for punishment for violation of the order of the Secretary.”
United States v. $256,235.97, 691 F. Supp. 2d 932 (N.D. Iowa 2010). “Counts 144 through 163 charged Sholom Rubashkin with Willful Violation of an Order of the Secretary of Agriculture and Aiding and Abetting a Willful Violation of an Order of the Secretary of Agriculture, in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 195 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 . On June 25, 2009, the…”
United States v. Two Hundred Fifty-Six Thousand Two Hundred Thirty-Five Dollars & Ninety-Seven Cents, 691 F. Supp. 2d 932 (N.D. Iowa 2010). “Counts 144 through 163 charged Sholom Rubashkin with Willful Violation of an Order of the Secretary of Agriculture and Aiding and Abetting a Willful Violation of an Order of the Secretary of Agriculture, in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 195 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 . On June 25, 2009, 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.