DOCSLIB.ORG

MAXIMUM PENALTIES TITLE 18 CRIMES and OTHER SELECTED STATUTES Misdemeanors Are Highlighted in Green

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
MAXIMUM PENALTIES TITLE 18 CRIMES and OTHER SELECTED STATUTES Misdemeanors Are Highlighted in Green Misdemeanors are highlighted in Green MAXIMUM PENALTIES Compiled by: TITLE 18 CRIMES AND Ellen Allred Assistant Federal Public Defender OTHER SELECTED Gulfport, MS STATUTES & Last updated September 13, 2017 Dennis Joiner Federal Public Defender Jackson, MS http://ms.fd.org/maxpenalties/maxpenal ties.pdf Section Description Penalty SR Class Sen/G TITLE 8 ALIEN OFFENSES st 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) Improper entry by alien • 1 Offense – NMT 6 NMT 1yr B (Misd) N/A mo/ $5,000 fine E • Subsequent offense – NMT 1yr 2L1.2 NMT 2 years/$250,000 fine 8 U.S.C. § 1325(c) Marriage to evade immigration jaws NMT 5yrs / $250,000 fine NMT 3yrs D 2L2.1, 2L2.2 8 U.S.C. 1325(d) Establishing business to evade NMT 5yrs / $250,000 fine NMT 3yrs D 2L2.1, 2L2.2 immigration laws 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)1&2 Entry/re-entry of deported, removed, or NMT 2yrs / $250,000 fine NMT 1yr E 2L1.2 excluded aliens, generally 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) Entry/re-entry following removal NMT 10 Yrs / $250,000 NMT 3yrs C 2L1.2 subsequent to felony or 3 + misd fine convictions for drug crimes/crimes against the person 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) Entry/re-entry following removal NMT 20 Yrs / $250,000 NMT 3yrs C 2L1.2 subsequent to aggravated felony fine 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(3) Entry of alien excluded on security 10yrs consecutive to any NMT 3yrs C 2L1.2 grounds other sentence / $250,000 fine 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(4) Re-entry by alien removed prior to NMT 10yrs and/or NMT 3yrs C 2L1.2 completion of sentence $250,000 fine. **Can also be made to complete prior sentence (See 1236(c) 8 U.S.C. § 1327 Aiding/assisting certain aliens to enter NMT 10yrs and/or NMT 3yrs C 2L1.1 $250,000 fine 8 U.S.C. § 1328 Importing alien for immoral purpose NMT 10yrs and/or NMT 3yrs C 2G1.1, 2G1.3 $250,000 fine Last updated 9/13/2017 Please email suggested edits to [email protected] Section Description Penalty SR Class Sen/G TITLE 15 COMMERCE AND TRADE 15 U.S.C. § 78-dd-1 Prohibited foreign trade pactices by See § 78ff(c) issuers (Use of mails/interstate commerce • For any Issuer -- NMT NA to bribe foreign officials, political parties $2,000,000 ($10,000 or candidates,and related crimes) civil penalty in actions brought by commission) **Note: Section 78ff(c) provides for a • For officers, employees, NMT 3yrs D 2C1.1 $100,000 fine for officers/employees; stockholders -- NMT 5 however, as statute is not exempted from yrs/$250,000 (civil 18 USC § 3571, the fine is raised to penalty of $10,000 in $250,000 actions brought by commission) 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-2 Prohibited foreign trade practices by • For domestic concern, N/A N/A domestic concerns not a natural person, $2,000,000 fine Penalties at 78dd-2(g) ($10,000 civil penalty in NMT 3yrs actions brought by AG) **Note: Section 78dd-2(g)(2)(A) • For natural persons, D 2C1.1 provides for a $100,000 fine; however, as NMT 5 yrs/$250,000 statute is not exempted from 18 USC § (civil penalty of 3571, the fine is raised to $250,000 $10,000 in actions pursuant to 3571(e) brought by AG) 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-3 Prohibited foreign trade practices – other • For Juridical Persons -- than issuers or domestic concerns $2,000,000 fine ($10,000 civil penalty in Penalties at 78dd-2(g) actions brought at AG) NMT 3yrs D 2C1.1 • For Natural Persons, **Note: Section 78dd-3(e)(2)(A) NMT 5 yrs/$250,000 provides for a $100,000 fine; however, as (civil penalty of statute is not exempted from 18 USC § $10,000 in actions 3571, the fine is raised to $250,000 brought by AG) pursuant to 3571(e) Last updated 9/13/2017 Please email suggested edits to [email protected] Section Description Penalty SR Class Sen/G 15 U.S.C. § 78ff(a) Willful violations of securities law NMT 20 years/$5,000,000 NMT 3 yrs C 2B1.1, 2C1.1 ($25,000,000 for non- persons) 15 U.S.C. § 78ff(b) Failure to file information, documents or Forfeit $100 per day, in N/A reports lieu of criminal penalty 15 U.S.C. § 78ff(c) Penalties for § 78-dd-1 (prohibited • For any Issuer -- NMT foreign trade practices by issuers) $2,000,000 ($10,000 civil penalty in actions brought by Commission) **Note: Section 78ff(c) provides for a • For officers, employees, NMT 3 yrs D 2B1.1, 2C1.1 $100,000 fine for officers/employees; stockholders -- NMT 5 however, as statute is not exempted from yrs/$250,000 (civil 18 USC § 3571, the fine is raised to penalty of $10,000 in $250,000 pursuant to 3571(e) actions brought by Commission) 15 U.S.C. § 1644 Fraudulent use of credit card NMT 10 yrs and/or NMT3yrs C 2B1.1 $250000 fine **Note: 1644(f) provides for a $10,000 fine; however, as statute is not exempted from 18 USC § 3571, the fine is raised to $250,000 pursuant to 3571(e) TITLE 16 CONSERVATION 16 U.S.C. § 3372 Transportation or sell of wildlife in NMT 1yr and/or $100,000 NMT 1yr A (Misd) Use most (all sections other than violation of federal law(16usc3373(d)(2) fine Analogous (b)(d)(f)) GL 16 U.S.C. § 3372(b)(d)(f) Failure to mark lable or tag fish/wildlife NMT 5yr and/or $250,000 NMT 3yr D Use most or falsely labeling fish/wildlife/plant fine Analogous imported or exported (16 usc3373(d)(1) GL (A)or sale with market value over $350. (18usc3373(d)(1)(B) Last updated 9/13/2017 Please email suggested edits to [email protected] Section Description Penalty SR Class Sen/G 16 U.S.C. § 3372(d),(f) Failure to mark lable or tag fish/wildlife NMT 5yr and/or $100,000 NMT 3yr D Use most or falsely labeling fish/wildlife/plant fine Analogous transported in interstate or foreign (16 GL usc3373(d)(3) (A)or sale with market value over $350. TITLE 18 CRIMES & CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CHAPTER 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS 18 U.S.C. § 3 Accessory after the fact • NMT 2 max See See 2X3.1 imprisonment and/or 18 USC 3583 18 USC NMT 2 the fine 3559 prescribed for the NMT 3yrs principal; • If principal prescribe life or death then NMT C 15 years 18 U.S.C.§ 4 Misprision of a felony NMT 3yrs and/or NMT 1yr E 2X4.1 $250,000 fine st 18 U.S.C. § 25 Use of minor in crime of violence • 1 Offense – 2x max Varies: See Varies: See imprisonment & fine; 18 USC 3583 18 USC 3559 • Subsequent Convictions- 3x max imprisonment & fine CHAPTER 2 AIRCRAFT & MOTOR VEHICLES 18 U.S.C. § 32 (a)(1-8) Domestic aircrafts, aircraft facilities -- NMT 20yrs and/or NMT 3yrs C 2A1.1, 2A1.2, destroying, damaging, or committing acts $250,000 fine 2A1.3, 2A1.4, endangering the safety of -- 2A2.1, 2A2.2, 2A2.3, 2A4.1, 2A5.1, 2A5.2, 2B1.1, 2K1.4, Last updated 9/13/2017 Please email suggested edits to [email protected] Section Description Penalty SR Class Sen/G 2X1.1 18 U.S.C. § 32 (b) Foreign aircrafts -- destroying, damaging, NMT 20yrs and/or NMT 3yrs C Same as 32(a) or committing acts endangering the $250,000 fine safety of-- 18 U.S.C. § 32 (c) Threats relating to aircraft Safety NMT 5yrs and/or NMT 3yrs D 2A6.1 $250,000 fine 18 U.S.C. § 33 (a) Destruction of motor vehicle or motor NMT 20yrs / $250,000 NMT 3yrs C 2A2.1, 2A2.2, vehicle facility fine 2B1.1,2K1.4 18 U.S.C. § 33(b) Destruction of motor vehicle carrying NLT 30yrs to Life / NMT 5yrs A Same as 33(a) radioactive waste $250,000 fine 18 U.S.C. § 34 Death resulting from aircraft or motor Death penalty or life NMT 5yrs A 2A1.1, 2A1.2, vehicle crimes imprisonment / $250,000 2A1.3, 2A1.4 18 U.S.C. § 35 (a) Knowingly conveying false information Civil penalty of NMT N/A N/A N/A in relation to aircraft/motor $1,000 vehicle/railway/shipping crime 18 U.S.C. § 35 (b) Willfully & maliciously or w/ reckless NMT 5yrs and/or NMT 3yrs D 2A6.1 disregard for life, imparting or conveying $250,000 fine false information relating to aircraft/motor vehicle/railway/shipping crime 18 U.S.C. § 36(b)(1) Drive-by shooting (shooting into a group • If defendant causes grave NMT 5yrs B 2D1.1 of 2+ in furtherance or to escape risk to life, NMT 25yrs detection of major drug offense w/ intent and/or $250,000 fine, if to harass, injure, intimidate, or maim) defendant (35(b)(1)) • If death results under circumstances constituting 1st degree NMT 5yrs A murder, death or any term of years to life life/$250,000 fine (36(b)(2)(A)) Last updated 9/13/2017 Please email suggested edits to [email protected] Section Description Penalty SR Class Sen/G st • If murder other than 1 degree,any term of years NMT 5yrs A including life/$250,000 fine (35(b)(2)(B)) 18 U.S.C. § 37 Violence at international airport • NMT 20yrs and/or NMT 3yrs C 2A1.1, 2A1.2, $250,000 2A1.3, 2A1.4, 2A2.1, • If death results, death or NMT 5yrs A 2A2,1, 2A2.3, any term of years 2A3.1, 2A3.4, including life and/or 2A4.1, 2A5.1, $250,000 2A5.2, 2B1.1, 2B3.1, 2K1.4, 2X1.1 18 U.S.C.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • One Hundred Fifteenth Congress of the United States of America
    S. 2896 One Hundred Fifteenth Congress of the United States of America AT THE SECOND SESSION Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, the third day of January, two thousand and eighteen An Act To require disclosure by lobbyists of convictions for bribery, extortion, embezzlement, illegal kickbacks, tax evasion, fraud, conflicts of interest, making false statements, perjury, or money laundering. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Justice Against Corruption on K Street Act of 2018’’ or the ‘‘JACK Act’’. SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE OF CORRUPT MALPRACTICE BY LOBBYISTS. (a) REGISTRATION.—Section 4(b) of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1603(b)) is amended— (1) in paragraph (5), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; (2) in paragraph (6), by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and (3) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following: ‘‘(7) for any listed lobbyist who was convicted in a Federal or State court of an offense involving bribery, extortion, embezzlement, an illegal kickback, tax evasion, fraud, a conflict of interest, making a false statement, perjury, or money laun- dering, the date of the conviction and a description of the offense.’’. (b) QUARTERLY REPORTS.—Section 5(b) of the Lobbying Disclo- sure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1604(b)) is amended— (1) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; (2) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and (3) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘(6) for any listed lobbyist who was convicted in a Federal or State court of an offense involving bribery, extortion, embezzlement, an illegal kickback, tax evasion, fraud, a conflict S.
    [Show full text]
  • Charging Language
    1. TABLE OF CONTENTS Abduction ................................................................................................73 By Relative.........................................................................................415-420 See Kidnapping Abuse, Animal ...............................................................................................358-362,365-368 Abuse, Child ................................................................................................74-77 Abuse, Vulnerable Adult ...............................................................................78,79 Accessory After The Fact ..............................................................................38 Adultery ................................................................................................357 Aircraft Explosive............................................................................................455 Alcohol AWOL Machine.................................................................................19,20 Retail/Retail Dealer ............................................................................14-18 Tax ................................................................................................20-21 Intoxicated – Endanger ......................................................................19 Disturbance .......................................................................................19 Drinking – Prohibited Places .............................................................17-20 Minors – Citation Only
    [Show full text]
  • Fraud and Investigation Policy KEYWORDS: Fraud, Investigation, Fraudulent, Cheat, Cheating, Swindling, Embezzlement, Deceit
    Fraud and Investigation Policy KEYWORDS: Fraud, investigation, fraudulent, cheat, cheating, swindling, embezzlement, deceit, deception, swindler. PURPOSE: Depending on the circumstances, investigations may be conducted by the Security, Corporate Compliance and/or Legal Department. These investigations provide a sound foundation for the protection of the innocent, the removal of wrong-doers from the ranks of St. Joseph's Healthcare System, appropriate judicial action when warranted and the basis for filing bond and insurance claims. SCOPE: All St. Joseph's Healthcare System Facilities. LEGAL/REGULATORY CITES: N/A DEFINITIONS: Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in person gain. Policy The Corporate Compliance and Security Departments have been directed to make themselves available and receptive to receiving relevant information concerning any situation involving possible impropriety matters pertaining to the operations of St. Joseph’s Healthcare System. Employees are expected to contact members of the Corporate Compliance Department through the Compliance Hotline (973-754-2017) or e-mail ([email protected]) to report potential ethical or legal concerns, possible breaches of patient privacy and confidentiality or fraudulent activities. Procedure Upon being notified of a potentially fraudulent activity, the Corporate Compliance Department will notify, as appropriate, legal counsel, administrative personnel and Security. If the notification is through the Compliance Hotline reporting system, the date, nature and name of the informant (if known) will be logged in the Corporate Compliance Hotline Log. The following investigative procedures will be followed: 1. No investigative techniques verging on illegal activities will be used (e.g. recording, photography devices). 2. All interviews and interrogations will be conducted in such a manner as not to discredit persons being interviewed, and will be conducted by two persons charged with investigative responsibilities.
    [Show full text]
  • CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT BRIEF HOUSE BILL NO. 2026 Brief* HB 2026 Would Establish a Certified Drug Abuse Treatment Program Fo
    SESSION OF 2021 CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT BRIEF HOUSE BILL NO. 2026 As Agreed to April 8, 2021 Brief* HB 2026 would establish a certified drug abuse treatment program for certain persons who have entered into a diversion agreement pursuant to a memorandum of understanding and amend law related to supervision of offenders and the administration of certified drug abuse treatment programs. It also would amend law to change penalties for crimes involving riot in a correctional facility and unlawfully tampering with an electronic monitoring device. Certified Drug Abuse Treatment Program—Divertees The bill would establish a certified drug abuse treatment program (program) for certain persons who have entered into a diversion agreement (divertees) pursuant to a memorandum of understanding (MOU). The bill would allow eligibility for participation in a program for offenders who have entered into a diversion agreement in lieu of further criminal proceedings on and after July 1, 2021, for persons who have been charged with felony possession of a controlled substance and whose criminal history score is C or lower with no prior felony drug convictions. ____________________ *Conference committee report briefs are prepared by the Legislative Research Department and do not express legislative intent. No summary is prepared when the report is an agreement to disagree. Conference committee report briefs may be accessed on the Internet at http://www.kslegislature.org/klrd [Note: Under continuing law, Kansas’ sentencing guidelines for drug crimes utilize a grid containing the crime severity level (1 to 5, 1 being the highest severity) and the offender’s criminal history score (A to I, A being the highest criminal history score) to determine the presumptive sentence for an offense.
    [Show full text]
  • Attempt: an Overview of Federal Criminal Law
    Attempt: An Overview of Federal Criminal Law Charles Doyle Senior Specialist in American Public Law April 6, 2015 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R42001 Attempt: An Overview of Federal Criminal Law Summary It is not a crime to attempt to commit most federal offenses. Unlike state law, federal law has no generally applicable crime of attempt. Congress, however, has outlawed the attempt to commit a substantial number of federal crimes on an individual basis. In doing so, it has proscribed the attempt, set its punishment, and left to the federal courts the task of further developing the law in the area. The courts have identified two elements in the crime of attempt: an intent to commit the underlying substantive offense and some substantial step towards that end. The point at which a step may be substantial is not easily discerned; but it seems that the more serious and reprehensible the substantive offense, the less substantial the step need be. Ordinarily, the federal courts accept neither impossibility nor abandonment as an effective defense to a charge of attempt. Attempt and the substantive offense carry the same penalties in most instances. A defendant may not be convicted of both the substantive offense and the attempt to commit it. Commission of the substantive offense, however, is neither a prerequisite for, nor a defense against, an attempt conviction. Whether a defendant may be guilty of an attempt to attempt to commit a federal offense is often a matter of statutory construction. Attempts to conspire and attempts to aid and abet generally present less perplexing questions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Hardening Plight of the American Ex-Convict
    WHEN THE PAST IS A PRISON: THE HARDENING PLIGHT OF THE AMERICAN EX-CONVICT Roger Roots University of Nevada, Las Vegas Department of Sociology ABSTRACT Today’s American criminal justice system is generating more ex-criminals than ever before, due to increasingly punitive sentencing, the increasing criminalization of formerly noncriminal acts, and the increasing federalization of criminal matters. At the same time, advances in record-keeping and computer technology have made life more difficult for ex-convicts. This article examines the hardships faced by American ex- convicts reentering the non-custodial community both at present and in the past. It concludes that modern ex-convicts face more difficulties than those of past generations, because 1) a greater number of laws that restrict their occupational and social lives, and 2) better data collection and transfer among criminal justice jurisdictions make evading or escaping from one’s criminal past more difficult. The result of these coalescing trends is that American society is increasingly forming a hierarchical order of citizenship, with long-term negative economic and social consequences for both ex-offenders and the broader community. 2 INTRODUCTION Criminal convictions have always carried collateral consequences in addition to their formal penalties. During much of American history—and, indeed, the history of the English legal system—convicted felons suffered a loss of social standing, disenfranchisement, and in some cases, “civil death,” a state in which they were denied all rights of citizenship including marriage, inheritance, and public office. In contrast, contemporary American ex-convicts retain their citizenship, their rights of property ownership, and their marriage and family rights, but are denied a host of other rights and privileges such as bearing arms and working in various occupations.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4: The
    VERSION 2016 THE LAW CHAPTER 4 UTAH STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION CHAPTER FOUR: THE LAW “True freedom requires the ‘rule of law’ and justice, and a judicial system in which the rights of some are not secured by the denial of the rights of others.” —Johnathan Sacks INTRODUCTION What is the law? The law is a system of rules that a community or country uses to regulate the actions of the people, and that can be enforced by applying sanctions to those who violate these rules. The United States has based its laws on English law. English law is based upon two similar concepts, common law and case law or precedent. Common law centers on tradition or custom, sometimes known as the rules of the common man. This means that what had been done previously becomes the basis for how decisions are to be made today. Case law is the system by which the decision or interpretation of a judge in the original case becomes the standard by which all later identical cases will be decided. U.S. history has seen a development of our laws, and today we have four sources of written law: the Constitution, statutory law, case law, and administrative law. Case law is the set of rulings by the courts that set precedent, or the standard by which all other lower courts must abide. Statutes are laws made by the legislature, and can originate either with the states or the federal government. Administrative laws are the rules created by a regulatory agency, such as the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Game.
    [Show full text]
  • History of Criminalization (November 2012)
    Osgoode Hall Law School of York University Osgoode Digital Commons Conferences and Workshops Conferences, Workshops, and Seminars 11-2012 History of Criminalization (November 2012) Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ nathanson_conferences Recommended Citation "History of Criminalization (November 2012)" (2012). Conferences and Workshops. 20. http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/nathanson_conferences/20 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences, Workshops, and Seminars at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Conferences and Workshops by an authorized administrator of Osgoode Digital Commons. Draft “Subverting the Settled Order of Things”: Sedition and Crimes against the State I. The Rise and Fall of Sedition In the introduction to Leviathan, where he developed an extended metaphor comparing parts of Leviathan, or the artificial man, to the human body, Thomas Hobbes described sedition as sickness, a sign of ill health in the body politic.1 This understanding of sedition, between concord and civil war, indicates the seriousness of the threat which sedition was understood to pose to the ongoing life and healthy functioning of the state. The criminal law, as a system of rewards and punishments, was described as the ‘nerves’ of the Leviathan by which means men were moved to perform their duty, and so it is not surprising to find that sedition – as a form of treason or as a description of other kinds of conduct (conspiracy, libel, speech) directed against established authority – figured large in early modern systems of criminal law. This might be contrasted with a modern understanding of the importance of dissent or disagreement to a properly functioning political order, and the modern distrust of political and legal orders where dissent is stifled.
    [Show full text]
  • The Unnecessary Crime of Conspiracy
    California Law Review VOL. 61 SEPTEMBER 1973 No. 5 The Unnecessary Crime of Conspiracy Phillip E. Johnson* The literature on the subject of criminal conspiracy reflects a sort of rough consensus. Conspiracy, it is generally said, is a necessary doctrine in some respects, but also one that is overbroad and invites abuse. Conspiracy has been thought to be necessary for one or both of two reasons. First, it is said that a separate offense of conspiracy is useful to supplement the generally restrictive law of attempts. Plot- ters who are arrested before they can carry out their dangerous schemes may be convicted of conspiracy even though they did not go far enough towards completion of their criminal plan to be guilty of attempt.' Second, conspiracy is said to be a vital legal weapon in the prosecu- tion of "organized crime," however defined.' As Mr. Justice Jackson put it, "the basic conspiracy principle has some place in modem crimi- nal law, because to unite, back of a criniinal purpose, the strength, op- Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley. A.B., Harvard Uni- versity, 1961; J.D., University of Chicago, 1965. 1. The most cogent statement of this point is in Note, 14 U. OF TORONTO FACULTY OF LAW REv. 56, 61-62 (1956): "Since we are fettered by an unrealistic law of criminal attempts, overbalanced in favour of external acts, awaiting the lit match or the cocked and aimed pistol, the law of criminal conspiracy has been em- ployed to fill the gap." See also MODEL PENAL CODE § 5.03, Comment at 96-97 (Tent.
    [Show full text]
  • 330183 1 En Bookfrontmatter 1..15
    Kidnapping and Violence Stephen Morewitz Kidnapping and Violence New Research and Clinical Perspectives 123 Stephen Morewitz California State University, East Bay San Francisco, CA, USA ISBN 978-1-4939-2116-4 ISBN 978-1-4939-2117-1 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2117-1 © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Science+Business Media, LLC part of Springer Nature.
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the DISTRICT of COLUMBIA MAHINDER SINGH : : Plaintiff, : Civil Action No.: 10-1615 (RC) : V.
    Case 1:10-cv-01615-RC Document 44 Filed 07/08/14 Page 1 of 36 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MAHINDER SINGH : : Plaintiff, : Civil Action No.: 10-1615 (RC) : v. : Re Document Nos.: 31, 36 : DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al., : : Defendants. : MEMORANDUM OPINION GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DISMISSING UNNAMED JOHN AND JANE DOE OFFICERS AS DEFENDANTS; GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Mahinder Singh brings suit against District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”) Officer Raj Dohare, unnamed other MPD officers (the “John and Jane Doe Officers”), and the District of Columbia (the “District”), asserting individual and municipal liability claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures, as well as claims for the common law torts of malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”), and abuse of process. Before the Court is the District’s motion for partial summary judgment seeking the following relief: dismissal and/or summary judgment in favor of the John and Jane Doe Officers on all counts; summary judgment on the torts of malicious prosecution, IIED, and abuse of process as to the District’s vicarious Case 1:10-cv-01615-RC Document 44 Filed 07/08/14 Page 2 of 36 liability for the alleged conduct of the John and Jane Doe Officers; and summary judgment as to the District’s municipal liability under Section 1983.1 For the reasons discussed below, the Court will grant the District summary judgment regarding its vicarious liability for the IIED tort allegedly committed by all John and Jane Doe Officers and the abuse of process tort allegedly committed by all John and Jane Doe Officers except for Officer Myisha McConaghey.
    [Show full text]
  • Virginia Model Jury Instructions – Criminal
    Virginia Model Jury Instructions – Criminal Release 20, September 2019 NOTICE TO USERS: THE FOLLOWING SET OF UNANNOTATED MODEL JURY INSTRUCTIONS ARE BEING MADE AVAILABLE WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER, MATTHEW BENDER & COMPANY, INC. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE FULL ANNOTATED VERSION OF THESE MODEL JURY INSTRUCTIONS IS AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE FROM MATTHEW BENDER® BY WAY OF THE FOLLOWING LINK: https://store.lexisnexis.com/categories/area-of-practice/criminal-law-procedure- 161/virginia-model-jury-instructions-criminal-skuusSku6572 Matthew Bender is a registered trademark of Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. Instruction No. 2.050 Preliminary Instructions to Jury Members of the jury, the order of the trial of this case will be in four stages: 1. Opening statements 2. Presentation of the evidence 3. Instructions of law 4. Final argument After the conclusion of final argument, I will instruct you concerning your deliberations. You will then go to your room, select a foreperson, deliberate, and arrive at your verdict. Opening Statements First, the Commonwealth's attorney may make an opening statement outlining his or her case. Then the defendant's attorney also may make an opening statement. Neither side is required to do so. Presentation of the Evidence [Second, following the opening statements, the Commonwealth will introduce evidence, after which the defendant then has the right to introduce evidence (but is not required to do so). Rebuttal evidence may then be introduced if appropriate.] [Second, following the opening statements, the evidence will be presented.] Instructions of Law Third, at the conclusion of all evidence, I will instruct you on the law which is to be applied to this case.
    [Show full text]