Cases from cite.case.law:

UNITED STATES v. DALEY,, 692 F. App'x 57 (2d Cir. 2017)

. . . Specifically, that felony was third degree intimidation of a witness in violation of New York Penal Law § 215.15 . . . Daley argues that there is insufficient evidence that he violated § 215.15(2) because there is no proof . . . Even if this argument were factually correct, § 215.15(2) also criminalizes attempts to compel a victim . . . N.Y.P.L. § 215.15(2); see also People v. . . .

APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD., 306 F.R.D. 234 (N.D. Cal. 2015)

. . . See Tabs 6, 19, 20, 215.15, 222, 255 and 272. . . .

GREAT OLD BROADS FOR WILDERNESS v. KIMBELL,, 709 F.3d 836 (9th Cir. 2013)

. . . . § 215.15 (appeal time periods for National Forest System Projects). . . . But Forest Service regulations provide that attachments are a part of an appeal, see 36 C.F.R. § 215.15 . . .

SANTONE a k a v. FISCHER,, 689 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2012)

. . . Penal Law § 215.15(1) (McKinney 1998), alleging that he had attempted, by threatening bodily harm, to . . .

UNITED STATES v. a. k. a. a. k. a. a. k. a. E- a. k. a. EZ- a. k. a. a. k. a. a. k. a. a. k. a. a. k. a. a. k. a. a. k. a. a. k. a. K, a. k. a. a. k. a. Ah, a. k. a. a. k. a. a. k. a. a. k. a. Ty- a. k. a. a. k. a. a. k. a. a. k. a. D, Jr. a. k. a. a. k. a. a. k. a. a. k. a. a. k. a. a. k. a. KP, a. k. a. a. k. a. a. k. a. L K. a. k. a. a. k. a. a. k. a. a. k. a. S,, 450 F. App'x 57 (2d Cir. 2011)

. . . Tarver regarding her prior conviction for witness intimidation in violation of New York Penal Law § 215.15 . . . While witness intimidation in violation of New York Penal Law § 215.15 may aim at presenting dishonest . . .

DAVIS, v. POOLE,, 767 F. Supp. 2d 409 (W.D.N.Y. 2011)

. . . of a weapon (Penal Law § 265.03(2)), and third degree intimidating a victim or witness (Penal Law § 215.15 . . . Degree (Penal Law § 265.03(2)), and Int’lmidating a Victim or a Witness in the Third Degree (Penal Law § 215.15 . . . Here, Davis was accused of violating P.L. 215.15(1), which provides that “[a] person is guilty of intimidating . . . Penal Law 215.15(1). . . .

EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE, a a a a v. PENGILLY, U. S. U. S., 376 F. Supp. 2d 994 (E.D. Cal. 2005)

. . . Responsible Official’s decision constitutes the final agency action of the Department • of Agriculture (§ 215.15 . . .

BENSMAN, v. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, 408 F.3d 945 (7th Cir. 2005)

. . . . § 215.15(a)(1) (emphasis added). The parties here do not contest that the appeals of both Mr. . . . ppellants should not rely on dates or timeframe information provided by any other source,” 36 C.F.R. § 215.15 . . .

FOREST WATCH, v. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, 322 F. Supp. 2d 522 (D. Vt. 2004)

. . . . § 215.15(a)(6), the Forest Service dismissed the plaintiffs’ administrative appeals as moot. . . .

M. SPICER, v. CHICAGO BOARD OPTIONS EXCHANGE, INC., 844 F. Supp. 1226 (N.D. Ill. 1993)

. . . Therefore, we allow $215.15. . . .

YOUNG, v. R. PIERCE,, 685 F. Supp. 975 (E.D. Tex. 1988)

. . . . § 215.15(c)(2). The extent of HUD’s involvement in public housing in East Texas is clear. . . .

YOUNG, v. PIERCE, Jr., 544 F. Supp. 1010 (E.D. Tex. 1982)

. . . . § 215.15(c)(2). . . .