Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01342/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01342-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brian N.
Appellee
United States of America
Appellant

Document Text:

PUBLISH; . FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

Urnted State.s (~1;1.rc of Appeals 

Temh Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

BRIAN N. (a juvenile male), 

Defendant-Appellee. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

CRA.IG J. B. (a juvenile male), 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APR ... zwgo 

ROBERT L. I-IOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 88-1342 

No. 88-13 46 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO 

(D.C. No. CR-87-349) 

David N. Williams, Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of New 

Mexico (William L. Lutz, United States Attorney, and Paula G. 

Burnett, Assistant U.S. Attorney, on the briefs), for PlaintiffAppellant. 

Peter Schoenburg, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Albuquerque, 

New Mexico, for Defendant-Appellee Brian N. 

Billy R. Blackburn, Albuquerque, New Mexico, for DefendantAppellee Craig J.B. 

Before McKAY, ANDERSON, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

McKAY, Circuit Judge. 

Appellate Case: 88-1342 Document: 01019569562 Date Filed: 04/02/1990 Page: 1 
Statement of the Case 

This case involves two appeals from the dismissals of criminal proceedings against two juveniles as ~he result of an incident 

which occurred on the Navajo Reservation near Shiprock, New 

Mexico, in July 1987. These two cases have been consolidated for 

appeal. The federal government filed an Information and Certification of Jurisdiction in September 1987 charging the Indian 

defendants with the murder of a non-Indian and assault on an 

Indian. In October 1987 the government filed an Amended Information which was virtually identical to the previous document. The 

defendants were arraigned, and the government proceeded against 

them as juveniles pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 5032 (1988). 

On December 11, 1987, the government filed a motion to transfer proceedings from jμvenile court to the federal district cqurt. · 

In January 1988 the district court held a telephonic hearing 

before a court reporter with counsel for the government and counsel for defendants. The court called the conference in order to 

determine whether the case should be dismissed because prior juvenile court records or a certification of their unavailability had 

not been received by the court pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 5032 

(1~88). ·All parties agreed juvenile records were available from 

the Navajo children's court and each defendant's attorney had 

obtained an uncertified copy of the records provided by the government. After hearing arguments from counsel, the court dismissed the case on the ground that the government had not provided 

. the court with the required documents relating to prior juvenile 

-2-

Appellate Case: 88-1342 Document: 01019569562 Date Filed: 04/02/1990 Page: 2 
court proceedings. Therefore, the government had failed to properly invoke jurisdiction under the federal juvenile statute. 

Subsequently, the government requested that the district 

court reconsider dismissal. In rejecting this request, the court 

examined the legislative history of the juvenile statute (18 

u.s.c. § 5032), provided by the government, purporting to show 

that receipt of juvenile records was not a jurisdictional prerequisite. The court found that the language of the statute was 

clear and unambiguous and held the interpretation urged by the 

government would defeat the statutory purposes set forth in other 

sections-of the juvenile ac~ --In-its February 4i 1988 Memorandum· 

Opinion and Order, the court affirmed its initial decision that 

jurisdictional prerequisites were not met and the action had to be 

dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction under the 

juvenile delinquency act. The government now appeals that dismissal to this court. 

Discussion 

A. Statutory Interpretation 

The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, 18 

U.S.C. § 5031-42 (1988),·provides special procedures for the prosecution of persons who are juveniles at the time a federal crime 

is committed. 1 Under this act, prosecution results in an 

1 Federal jurisdiction for the crimes which defendants allegedly committed is vested by the Major Crimes Act, 18 u.s.c. § 1153 

(1988), which provides: 

Any Indian who commits against the person or 

-3-

Appellate Case: 88-1342 Document: 01019569562 Date Filed: 04/02/1990 Page: 3 
adjudication of status--not a criminal conviction. United States 

v. Frasquillo-Zomosa, 626 F.2d 99, 101 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 

449 U.S. 987 (1980); see also United States v. Duboise, 604 F.2d 

648, 649-50 (10th Cir. 1979). The purpose of the federal juvenile 

delinquency proceeding is to remove juveniles from the ordinary 

criminal process· in order to avoid the stigma of a prior criminal 

conviction and to encourage treatment and rehabilitation. See 

United States v. Mechem, 509 F.2d 1193, 1195-96 (10th Cir. 1975); 

Cotton v. United States, 355 F.2d 480, 481 (10th Cir. 1966); 

United States v. Webb, 112 F. Supp. 950, 951 (W.D. Okla. 1953). 

The-procedures for instituting delinquency proceedings and 

transfers to the adult courts for criminal prosecution as an adult 

are contained in 18 U.S.C. § 5032 (1988). The government argues 

that there are three areas of ambiguity which render this section 

unclear. Their first argument is that the statute does not provide direction as to which event actually commences proceedings 

under this act--the filing of an information or a motion to transfer. The second argument is that "juvenile records" and "clerk of 

the juvenile court" are not defined. In addition the government 

argues there is no juvenile court for the United States district 

court. Finally, the government argues that the statute contains 

property of another Indian or other person any of the 

following offenses, namely, murder, . [or] assault 

resulting in serious bodily injury, ... within the 

Indian country, shall be subject to the same law and 

penalties as all other persons committing any of the 

above offenses, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the 

United States. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 88-1342 Document: 01019569562 Date Filed: 04/02/1990 Page: 4 
only one mandatory "shall" which results in an unclear statutory 

mandate. They claim this lack of directive is evidenced by the 

absence of an-appropriate procedure when juvenile records are not 

filed. For these reasons, the government requests this court to 

interpret this section according to the legislative history. We 

address the government's arguments as we review the statute for 

ambiguity. 

The district court found that the statute was clear and 

unambiguous on its face and, therefore, interpretation by legislative history was not necessary. We review statutory interpretation decisions de novo. United States v. Martinez, 890 F.2d 1088, 

1091 (10th Cir. 1989); Supre v. Ricketts, 792 F.2d 958, 961 (10th 

Cir. 1986). In de novo review, the appellate court must review 

the record in light of its own independent judgment without giving 

special weight to the prior decision. Ocelot Oil Corp. v. Sparrow 

Indus., 847 F.2d 1458, 1464 (10th Cir. 1988). 

"In determining the scope of a statute, we first look to its 

language." United States v. Monsanto, U.S. I 109 s. Ct. 

2657, 2662 (1989); United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 580 

(1981); Wilson v. Stocker, 819 F.2d 943, 948 (10th Cir. 1987). 

The critical language before us contained in 18 U.S.C. § 5032 

(1988) states: 

Any proceedings against a juvenile under this chapter or as an adult shall not be commenced until any 

prior juvenile court records of such juvenile have been 

received by the court, or the clerk of the juvenile 

. court has certified in writing that the juvenile has no 

-5-

Appellate Case: 88-1342 Document: 01019569562 Date Filed: 04/02/1990 Page: 5 
prior recor.d, or that the juvenile's record is unavailable and why it is unavailable. 

(Emphasis added}. We agree with the district court that this language is clear and unambiguous in its requirement that any prior 

juvenile court records must be received by the court before a proceeding shall commence against a juvenile. Normally when we find 

a statute's terms to be unambiguous, our inquiry is complete. 

Burlington Northern R.R. Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 481 U.S. 454, 

461 (1987}; Wilson, 819 F.2d at 948. The government seeks to have 

us look beyond the language of section 5032 to the legislative 

history. We decline to fully analyze the legislative history 

because we find the statutory language unambiguous. We also 

believe that the only legislative history provided in this case, 

two vague pages from the Senate Judiciary Committee report on section 5032, is scant and capable of differing interpretations. 

This provides an independent reason to ~ely only on the words of 

the statute. Miller v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 836 F.2d 1274, 

1282-83 (10th Cir. 1988). 

The government argues that the statute's language is unclear 

because deleting one option results in a different interpretation 

of when a proceeding commences. The government states that "any 

proceedings against a juvenile ••• as an adult" suggests the 

quoted phrase applies or begins to operate when a motion to transfer is filed. 2 This argument fails because paragraph three of the 

2 Even assuming the government's interpretation of when 

case commenced is correct, this case would still result in 

dismissal because the juvenile records-,were not filed with 

motion to transfer. 

-6-

the 

the 

Appellate Case: 88-1342 Document: 01019569562 Date Filed: 04/02/1990 Page: 6 
. same.statute explicitly states that ''[t]he Attorney General shall 

proceed by information'' when a juvenile is not surrendered to 

state authorities. 18 U.S.C. § 5032 (1988). 3 The additional language, "and no criminal prosecution shall be instituted for the 

alleged act of juvenile delinquency except as provided below[,]" 

contained in the same- sentence, makes it clear that the prosecutor 

shall not "institute" a prosecution until it has complied with its 

mandatory duties including the one at issue here. We find no 

merit in the government's assertion that there are two equal 

methods of starting an action under this act. The statute is 

clear that the "proceedings'' begin with the filing of an information. See United States v. Doe, 631 F.2d 110, 112-13 (9th Cir.), 

cert. denied, 449 U.S. 867 (1980); In re Martin, 788 F.2d 696, 

697-98 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1009 (1986). Further 

proceedings under the act include the transfer for criminal prosecution, 4 the adjudication hearing, 5 and the dispositional 

3 The third paragraph of 18 U.S.C. § 5032 (1988) states: 

If an alleged juvenile delinquent is not 

surrendered to the authorities of a State or the 

District of Columbia pursuant to this section, any 

proceedings against him shall be in an appropriate 

district court of the United States. For such purposes, 

the court may be convened at any time and place within 

the district, in chambers or otherwise. The Attorney 

General shall proceed by information, and no criminal 

prosecution shall be instituted for the alleged act of 

juvenile delinquency except as provided below. 

4 The fourth paragraph of 18 u.s.c. § 5032 (1988) allows the 

government to transfer a case from the "status of juvenile 

delinquency" to criminal prosecution. In order for criminal 

prosecution to occur, it must be alleged that the juvenile 

"committed an act after his fifteenth birthday which if committed 

-7-

Appellate Case: 88-1342 Document: 01019569562 Date Filed: 04/02/1990 Page: 7 
hearing. 6 

The government's second argument~is that section 5032 is 

ambiguous because there is no definition of juvenile court 

records, no identification of the clerk of the juvenile court and 

no juvenile court for the United States district court. A juvenile is defined as "a person who has not attained his eighteenth 

birthday, or for the purpose of proceedings and disposition under 

this chapter ..• a person who has not attained his twenty-first 

birthday." 18 u.s.c. §· 5031 (1988). The language in paragraph 

ten of section 5032 unambiguously states that any prior juvenile 

·court records are to be filed.· This includes municipal, county, 

state, federal, as well as tribal court records. The government 

complains that it would have to search each New Mexico judicial 

district as well as· other state jurisdictions before it could file 

under this statute. This argument is an attack on Congress's 

by an adult would be a felony that is a crime of violence." 18 

u.s.c. § 5032 (1988). This paragraph requires the court to hold a 

hearing in order to determine the transferability of the case. 

There are two methods for implementing a transfer. Both avenues 

of transfer require findings based upon the contents of the 

juvenile records. The district courts must make adequate findings 

of fact in a transfer hearing as mandated by the statute. United 

States v. C.G., 736 F.2d 1474, 1479 (11th Cir. 1984). These 

mandatory factual findings further emphasize the necessity of 

filing juvenile records at the commencement of the proceedings or 

the filing of the information. 

5 It appears that the adjudication of a juvenile as a 

delinquent occurs at the trial before the district court. 

6 These procedural requirements are contained in 18 U.S.C. 

§ 5037 (1988). 

-8-

Appellate Case: 88-1342 Document: 01019569562 Date Filed: 04/02/1990 Page: 8 
decision- to place these burdens on the government in juvenile 

cases. It was Congress that decided juvenile records are to be 

filed at commencement of a case--not afterward. We cannot rewrite 

the statute which is clear in its directive. 

In this case, we are not required to resolve a conflict where 

a good faith effort fails to produce a juvenile record which may 

in fact exist somewhere. Here, the government was aware of the 

juvenile records and their contents which probably formed the 

basis for the decision .to seek transfer. Although the government 

is required to investigate a juvenile's background more thoroughly 

than an adult,7-thls only enhances the government's ability to 

7 Although this paragraph has been amended, the language in 

effect at the time this action commenced stated the following: 

A juvenile alleged to have committed an act of 

juvenile delinquency, other than a violation of law 

committed within the special maritime and territorial 

jurisdiction of the United States for which the maximum 

authorized term of imprisonment does not exceed six 

months, shall not be proceeded against in any court of 

the United States unless the Attorney General, after 

investigation, certifies to the appropriate district 

court of the United States that (1) the juvenile court 

or other appropriate court of a State does not have 

jurisdiction or refuses to assume jurisdiction over said 

juvenile with respect to such alleged act of juvenile 

delinquency, (2) the State does not have available 

programs and services adequate for the needs of 

juveniles, or (3) the offense charged is a crime of 

violence that is a felony or an offense described in 

section 841, 952(a), 955, or 959 of title 21, and that 

there is a substantial Federal interest in the case or 

the offense to warrant the exercise of Federal 

jurisdiction. 

18 U.S.C. § 5032 (Supp. 1987). 

-9-

Appellate Case: 88-1342 Document: 01019569562 Date Filed: 04/02/1990 Page: 9 
provide the court with facts sufficient to warrant a transfer to 

adult criminal prosecution. 

The argument that no juvenile court exists in the United 

States district court is incorrect. Paragraph three states that 

for juvenile proceedings "the court may be convened at any time 

and place within the district, in chambers or otherwise." 18 

U.S.C. § 5032 (1988). According to this language, any United 

States district court can convene itself as a juvenile court under 

this act. 

For the reasons stated ~bove, we find this statute to be 

clear and unambiguous. Therefore, it is not necessary to utilize 

legislative hi~tory to interpret the meaning of this section. 

Based upon our de novo review of the record and the facial reading 

of the statute, we affirm the district court's finding that this 

statute is clear and unambiguous. 

B. Jurisdictional Requirements 

The government's argument that no jurisdictional prerequisites exist under 18 u.s.c. § 5032 (1988) is erroneous. 8 

8 Section 5032 states: 

A juvenile alleged to have committed an act of 

juvenile delinquency • . . shall not be proceeded 

against in any court of the United States unless the 

Attorney General, after investigation, certifies to the 

appropriate district court of the United States that (1) 

the juvenile court or other appropriate court of a State 

does not have jurisdiction or refuses to assume 

jurisdiction over said juvenile with respect to such 

alleged act of juvenile .delinquency, (2) the State does 

not have available programs and services adequate for 

-10-

Appellate Case: 88-1342 Document: 01019569562 Date Filed: 04/02/1990 Page: 10 
Paragraph ten of section 5032 specifically prohibits the commencement of proceedings until prior juvenile court records are filed. 

Proceedings against juveniles under this act commence with the 

filing of the information. Therefore the juvenile court records 

or certification of unavailability must be filed with the information. In this case the government knew of the existence of these 

juvenile defendants' court records, but failed to make any effort 

to provide the records to the court at the time the information 

was filed or at the filing of the motion to transfer. We believe 

the statute mandates the filing of such records at the commencement of the proceedings--the filing of the information. Thus, we 

·Cannot find-error in the district court's dismissal of this case 

without prejudice. 

AFFIRMED. 

the needs of juveniles, or (3) the offense charged is a 

crime of violence that is a felony .•. and that there 

is a substantial Federal interest in the case or the 

offense to warrant the exercise of Federal jurisdiction. 

18 U.S.C. § 5032 (1988) (emphasis added). We have previously 

concluded that this Certification requirement is jurisdictional. 

United States v. Doe, 642 F.2d 1206, 1208 (10th Cir.)~ cert. 

denied, 454 U.S. 817 (1981). 

-11-

Appellate Case: 88-1342 Document: 01019569562 Date Filed: 04/02/1990 Page: 11