### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 07- 60732

UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. J AM ES F ORD S EAL E D efen d a n t- A p p ell a n t

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt fo rth e S o u th e r n D is tr ic t o f M is s is s ip p i

Be f o r e J ONES, Chi e f

J u d g e , KI NG, J OLL Y, DAVI S , S M I TH, W I ENER, BA RK SD AL E, G AR ZA, D e M O S S , BE N AV I D ES, STEW AR T, D EN N I S, C L E M E N T , P R A D O , O W E N , E L R O D , S O U T H W IC K , a n d H AY N E S , C ir c u it Ju dg es. CE RT I F I CA T E OF QUE S T I ON T O

THE S UPREME COURT OF T HE UNI TE D S TA TE S
P E R C U R I A M: P u rsu a n t t o 2 8 U
. S

. C

. § 12 5 4 (2) a n d S u p rem e C ou rt R u l e 1 9 , a m aj ority of t h e m em bers of

the en b an c court h ave voted to cert i f y t h e fol l ow i n g qu est i on of l aw t o t he Supr e m e Cour t : W hat s t at ut e o f l i m i t at i o ns ap pl i e s t o a pro se c ut i on under 18 U
. S. C

. § 1201 f ora ki dnapi ng of

fens e t hat oc c urr ed i n 1964 bu tw as not i n di ct ed u n t i l200 7? United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Jul y 30, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 07- 60732

2 Th e Supre m e Courthas j uri sdi c t i on t o re vi ew cas es “ [b] y c er t i f i c at i on at
an y t i m e by a court of ap pea l s of an y qu est i on of l aw i n an y ci vi lor cri m i n alcase a s t o w h i c h i n s t r u c t i o n s a r e d e s i r e d , a n d u p o n s u c h c e r t i f i c a t i o n t h e S u p r e me C ou rtm ay gi ve bi n di n g i n st ructi on s or requ i re t h e en t i re recor d to be sent up f or d e c i s i o n o f

t h e e n t i r e m a t t e r i n c o n t r o v e r s y . ” 2 8 U
. S

. C

. § 1 2 5 4 ( 2 )

. S u p r e me C ou rt R u l e 1 9 ex p l a i n s th a t “ [a ] U n ite d S tates co u rt of ap p ea l s m a y ce rti fy to [ t he Supr e m e ] Cour ta q ue s t i o n o r pr oposi t i o n o f l aw on w hi c h i t s e e ks i ns t r uc t i o n f

o rt he pr o pe rde c i s i o n o f a c as e . The c e r t i f

i c at e s hal lc o n t ai n a st atem en tof

t h e na t u re of

t h e case an d the fact s on w h i ch the q u est i on or pr o po s i t i o n o f

l aw ar i s e s . Onl y que s t i o ns orpr o po s i t i o ns of l aw m ayb e c e r t i f

i e d, and t hey s hal lbe s t at ed s epar at el y and w i t h pre c i si on. ” Th e Supre m e Courthas
ca u ti on ed ag a i n st a q u estion of “ob j ection a b l e g en era l i ty” an d pr efers “a d efi n i te
a n d c lea n -cut q u estion of l a w . ” S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Mayer , 235 U
. S. 55, 66 (19 1 4 ). In k ee p i n g w i th th i s i n stru cti on , w e w i l ln ow pr ov i d e th e relev a n t fa cts and f r am e t he di s po s i t i ve l e ga lq ue s t i o n. I. Afederal j u ry i n t h e S o u th ern D i st ri ctof M i ssi ssi pp if

ou n d Ja m es Ford Se al e g ui l t y o f

t w o c o unt s of

ki dna pi ng unde r 18 U
. S. C. § 1 20 1( a) a nd o ne c o unt of conspi racy t o com m i tki dn ap i n g u n der 18 U
. S

. C

. § 12 01(c )

. T h e d i st ri ctcourt
s e nt e nc e d hi m t o l i fe i m pr i s o nm e nt
. The ki dna pi ngs oc c ur r e d i n 196 4, butt he g o v e r n m e n t d id n o t in d ic t S e a le u n til 2 0 0 7
. U nl i k e s o m e fe d e r a lc r i m e s , § 1 2 0 1 d o e s n o t i n c l u d e i t s o wn l i m i t at i o ns pe r i o d. The r e s i dua ll i m i t at i o ns pe r i o ds o f t he c r i m i nalc o de , s e c t i o ns 3 28 1 and 32 82, a ppl y t o t ho s e fe de r alc r i m e s t hatdo no t c o nt ai n t he i r o w n l i m i t at i o ns per i ods
. Sec t i on 3281 st at es that“[ a] n i ndi c t m entf orany o f

fens e puni shabl e b y dea t h m ay be f

ou n d at any ti m e w i t h ou t l i m i t ati on . ” I n contr ast, § 3282 st ates t h at “ n o person sha l lbe prosecuted, t ri ed, or pu n ish e d f or any of

fen se, not capi t al , u n l ess t h e i n di ct m en t i s f ou n d .
. . w i t h i n f

i ve years n ext af

t er s u chN o. 07- 60732

B oth parti es a gre e th at the 199 4 am endments to § 1 201 ar e irrelevant to the 1 resolutionof the limit atio ns i ssue in this case. 3 o f fe n s e s h a ll h a v e b e e n co m m itt e d .” B e fo r e th e ca s e p r o c e e d e d to tr ia l, S e a le f i l ed a m ot i on t o dism i ss t he i ndi c t m ent , al l egi ng t hat hi s pro se c ut i on w as barred by t h e f

i ve- year st atute of l i m i t ati on s app l i cabl e t o non - capi t alcr i m es. S ee 18 U
. S

. C

. § 328 2. A f t er cond u ct i n g a h eari n g, t h e di st ri ctcourtoral l y den i ed S eal e’ s m o t i o n t o di s m i s s t he i ndi c t m e ntb as e d up o n a f i ndi ng t hatt he p rose cu ti on w a s go ve rn ed by the u n l i m i ted statu te of l i m i tati on s ap p l i ca b l e to
c a p ita l cr im e s . S ee 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 2 8 1
. I n 1 96 4, ki dna pi ng w as p u n i s hab l e b y de at h, s o t he c ap i t all i m i t at i o ns p eriod ap p l i ed
. H ow ev er, i n 19 6 8 , the S u p rem e C ou rt he l d tha t t h e d ea th pen al t y cl au se of § 120 1 w as u n consti t u t i on al an d s everable f rom t h e rem ai n der
o f th e s ta tu te
. S ee Un i t ed S ta tes v. Ja ckson , 39 0 U
. S

. 57 0 , 58 1 -82 ( 1 9 6 8 ). In 19 72 , t he Supr e m e C o ur tde c i de d Fu rm a n v. G eo rg ia , 408 U
. S

. 238 ( 197 2) , w h i ch castser i ou s dou bt on w h et h er exi st i n g st ate and federal death p en al t y regi m es w ere consti t u t i on alu n der t h e E i gh t h A m en dm en t
. O n t h e rec om m en da t i on of t he D epar t m entof

Just i c e, C ongr es s r epe al ed t he dea t h penal t y c l ause of § 1201 in o rd e r to a v o id “fa cia l i n v a li d ity ” in th e w a k e of Jac ks o n and Fur m an . S ee A ct f or t h e P rot ect i on of F orei gn O f f i ci al s an d O f

f i ci al G u est s of t h e U n i t ed S t ates, Pub. L. N o . 92

- 53 9, § 20 1, 86 St at
. 10 70

- 73 ( 19 72 ) (he r e i naf t e r r e fe r r e d t o a s t he

“ 19 72 Ac t ” o rt he “ 19 72 a m e ndm e nt s ” ) ; 118 C o ng. R e c . 2 71 16 ( 19 72 ) ( s t at e m e nt of R ep. Pof

f )

. U nt i l C ongr es s r ei nst at ed t he deat h penal t y f or ki dnapi ng i n 1994, § 120 1 carri ed a f

i v e -y e a r sta tu e of

l i m i t ati on s. S ee 28 U
. S

. C

. § 3282

. B ef ore 1 t h e d istri ctcourt , Sea l e argu ed that ei t h er Jac ks o n or t h e 197 2 am en dm en t s, s ta n d in g a lo n e , h a d th e e ffe c t of c h a n g in gth e lim ita tio n s p e r io d a p p lic a b le to h is p r o s e c u tio n fr o m u n lim ite d to fiv e y e a r s . T h e d i stri ct cou rt he l d tha t Ja ck son s t and i ng al o ne di d no t c hang e t he l i m i t ati on s peri od ap pl i cabl e t o Sea l e’ s prosecuti on . Th e di st ri ctcourtN o. 07- 60732

B ecau se th e di strict court di d not i ssue awritte n opinionexplainingits denialof the 2 mo tio n, w e have repr oduc ed theoral ruli ng: T HECOURT : Se ctio n32 8 1 provid esnoli mitation s pe riodf orki dn a pp in ga s a capital crime. Section32 82 plac es afive-year st at ut e of limitations on noncapital cases. Since the incidents ch arged in the indictm en to c curre d in 196 4, o ne quickly recogniz es that should 328 2 apply , this co urt would have to dismiss th e indictment in its entirety because the statut e of limitation s woul d have lon g run . Th erefo re, the court’s ruling on this issue will d etermine wheth er the case should b e di smissed immediatelyor wheth er the lawsuit may procee d to trial. Our j uri sprudence r ecogniz es adistinct difference betwee n capital and noncapital cases. The numb er of p er em p torych all enges, b ail , ac cess toth e ve nir e, multipl e attorn ey s, for ex ample, are allaffe cted bythis ch aracteri zation
. Th e pr ecise que stionh ere is w he t he r th e fe deralkidn appin g statut e in the absenceo f th e de athp en altyauthoriz ationaft erth e wakeo f Jackson and Fu rman has lost its status a s a capital offen se. This co urt hol ds that th e fe der alkidnappin g statut e yet mu st beac corded capit al o f

f e n s e s t at u s wh e n c o urt s l o o k t o d e t e r m i n e th e p r o p e r s t atu te o f limit atio ns. This court is persuade d that the lan gu age in [ United States v. Hoyt , 4 5 1 F .2 d 5 7 0( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 7 1 )] and [ United Sta te sv . Kais er , 54 5 F .2d 4 67 (5th Cir. 197 7)], Fifth Circuit cases, which coul d appear to say othe rwise is dicta. Those c ourt s w ere not squ arely presented with the issue befo re this court and had no nee d within the cont ext of their litigatio n to comment uponth e matter. Next th e court agrees with the gove rnment that the va st maj orityof courts to 4 c harac t er i ze d as di c t a the h ol di ng of t w o Fi f t h C i r c ui t c as es , w hi c h st at ed t hat Jac ks o n rend ered § 1201 non - capi t alf or al lpu rposes. I n st ead , i t rel i ed on p rece d en t f

rom oth er circu i ts h oldin g th a t j u d i ci a li n va l i d a ti on of a de a th pe nal t y provi s i o n i n a fe de r alc r i m e a s unc o ns t i t ut i o naldo e s no t c hang e t he li m ita tion s p e rio d a p p li ca b le to th a t cr im e . T h e d istr ict co u rt r ejec te d S e a le ’s
e f f o r tt o di s t i n gui s h t ho s e c as e s a s no t i nvo l vi ng j udi c i als e ve r anc e o f t he
o ffen d in gla n g u a g e a n d n o t in v o lvin gth e effe ct o f Jackson
. R egard i n g t h e ef fect of 197 2 am en dm en t s t o § 1201 , t h e di st ri ct court si m pl y st ated t h at “ [ C on gress’ s]
r epe alw as notm ade re t r oac t i ve, ” rej ec t i ng t he r eas oni ng of anot herc our t t hat h a s a d d r e s s e d th is p a r tic u la ris s u e . Se e Un i t e dS t a t e s v . P r o v e n z a no , 4 2 3 F. S u p p . 6 6 2 (S .D .N .Y . 1 9 7 6 ), aff’d , 5 5 6 F .2d 5 6 2 (2d C ir. 1 9 7 7 ). 2N o. 07- 60732

co n si de r this matt er h ave re j ecte d th e de fe n dant’ s argu me nt. [ Un ited Statesv . Mannin g, 5 6F .3 d 1188 (9 thC ir
. 1 9 9 5), United States v. Ed wards , 15 9 F .3d 111 7 (8th Cir. 199 8), and Un ited Statesv . Eal

y , 3 6 3F .3 d 2 9 2 ( 4 thC ir
. 2 0 0 4)] , for instance, h ave pr esent ed th e co urt and pointed the court in the direction of the gove rnment’s argu ment. Thatar gu ment is s t r uc t ured uponviewin g kidnapping

u nder aseverityof the crime analy sis versus a procedural protection o ne o r an ature of th e pe nalty onewhich is apparent in the cases reviewed bythis court. This seve rityof the crimeanalysis is premised upona recognition, a congression al recognition that some crimes are soserious that th e offen der should b e punish ed whe never c aught. Finally , this co urt also is pe rsuade d th at sinceth e ins t an to f f ense all egedly occurred in 196 4, this court sho uld look to the 196 4 ki dnapp ing statut e and its statut e of li mitations. This 196 4 statuteno o ne dispute s provided no limit atio ns as to when anoffender would becharged for this veryserious crime. Th e repeal in 197 2 is not conse que ntial because the repeal wa s no tmade re troactive. I un d e r s t a n dth ed e f

e n d a nt ’ sar gu m e ntan dth ec o urti sno tp e r s u a d e dth at because the Fu rmandecisionwas ma de r etroactive th at it someho w affect s thi s matter in the mann er in which the defen dantar gu es. Thus fo r all the reaso ns enu nci ate d b yth e co urt , thisc ourti s p er su a de d tod enyth e mo tiont o di smi ss. ROA (Vol . 3) 56-5 8. 5 O n app eal , Sea l e reass ert ed the argu m en t t h at hi s prosec u t i on w as t i m ebarred by § 3282

. Aun an i m ou s pa n el of t h i s court agreed , reversi n g t h e di st ri ct
c o u r t a n d re n d e r in ga ju d g m e n t o f a c q u itt a l. S ee Un itedS ta tes v. S ea le , 542 F. 3d 1033 ( 5t h C i r . 2008)

. A c c or di ng t o t he panel , abs enta c l ears t at em entby C on gress t o t h e contr a ry , su bstanti ve cha n ges t o federal st atutes are app l i ed p ro sp e ct i vel y bu tprocedu ralchan ges are app l i ed ret roact i vel y. Th e pan el obs er ved t hat t he 1972 am endm ent s r epe al ed t he dea t h penal t y c l ause of § 1201,
w h i ch had t he e f

fe c to f c hang i ng t he l i m i t at i o ns pe r i o d t o f i ve y e ar s . Bec au se c hanges t o t he l i m i t at i ons per i od ar e pr oc edur al i n nat ure , t he panelf ound t hat th ose ch a n ge s ap p l y re troa cti ve l y to p re-am en d m en t of fen ses , ab sen t Ex Post F act o c onc er ns t hatar e no ti m pl i c at ed i n t hi s c as e. T he panelhel d t hat t he 1972
a m e n d m e n ts to § 1 2 0 1 re tr o a c tiv e ly ch a n g e d t h e lim ita tio n s p e r io d a p p lic a b le t o Se al e ’ s pr o s e c ut i o n t o f i ve ye ar s . Al t ho ugh t he 1 97 2 am e ndm e nt s r e duc e d t heN o. 07- 60732

Seale’s alte rnative motionto rehe ar the case duringth e Se ptemberenbanc term of 3 th e co urti s d enie d. See F I F T H C IR . R. 35.6
. 6 avai l abl e puni shm entf r om deat h t o l i f

e i m pri so nm ent , w hi c h w as a s ubst ant i ve c h a n g e , th e p a n e l d e te r m i n e d th a t t h e 1 9 7 2 a m e n d m e n ts w e r e p r im a r ily procedu ralbecau se Jac ks o n had al r ead y se ve red an d ren d ere d the de a th pe n a l ty cl au se un en f

orceabl e i n 196 8. T h u s, t h e pa n el ’ s ret roact i vi t y h ol di n g w as based
o n th e co m b in e d effe ct o f Jac ks o n a n d th e 1 9 7 2 a m e n d m e n ts
. The go ve r nm e ntf

i l e d a pe t i t i o n f

o r re he ar i ng e n b anc , w hi c h was g r ant e d. S ee Un i t ed Stat es v. S ea le , 5 50 F. 3d 3 77 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 8)

. The g r anto f t he peti t i on f

or r eh eari n g en ban c had t h e ef fectof vacati n g t h e un an im o u s pan el
o p in io n a n d re n d e r in git n o n -p r e c e d e n tia l. See Uni t e d St at e s e x r e l
. Ma rcy v. R o w a n Co s ., 5 20 F. 3d 3 84 , 3 89 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 8)

. The e n b anc v o t e c al l e d f or a ff ir m in go rr e v e r s in gth e r u li n go f th e d is t r ic t c o u r t , w h ic h d e n ie d S e a le ’s
m ot i on t o di sm i ss t he i ndi c t m en t on l i m i t at i ons gr ounds. By re as on o f an equ al l y di vi ded 9

- 9 vote, t h e en ba n c c ou rt , w i t h ou t opi n i on , nom i n al l y af f i rm ed th e d is tr ic t co u r t’s d e n ia l o f th e m o tio n to d is m is s . S ee Un itedS ta tes v. S ea le , --- F. 3d - - - - , 2 00 9 W L 15 65 16 2 ( 5t h Ci r . J une 5 , 2 00 9)

. The pe r c ur i am o r de r o f t he
e n b a n c c o u r t is n o t p r e c e d e n tia l, seeUn i t ed S t ate s v. Mend oza- G on zal ez , 318 F. 3d 6 63, 6 67 n. 5 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 3) , a nd i t di d no t a ddr e s s t he m e r i t s o f t he l i m ita ti on s i ssue. Th e app ealw as ret u rned t o t h e ori gi n alpan elf or consi derati on of

t h e rem ai n i n g i ssues rai sed by S eal e. II. O n J une 1 2, 2 00 9, Se al e f i l e d a “ M o t i o n t o Cer t i f y Q ue s t i o n of

Law t o t he S upr e m e Cour to f

t he U ni t e d St at e s , o r I n t he Al t e r nat i ve , t o Rehe ar i ng t he C a s e D u r in gth e S e p te m b e rE n B a n c T e r m o f th e C o u r t.” In th is m o tio n , S e a le 3
r e c o mme n d e d t h a tt h e e n b a n c c o u r t c e r t i f y t h e l i mi t a t i o n s i s s u e t o t h e S u p r e me C o u r t p u r s u a n t t o 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 4 (2 ) b e c a u s e (1 ) it is a q u e s tio n o f la w ; (2 ) it is unj ustt o a l l ow a li fe se n ten c e t o s t and bas ed o n a nom i nalaf f i r m ance by anN o. 07- 60732

7 eq u a l l y d i vid ed en ba n c cou rt; ( 3 ) th e dist ri ct cou rt’ s ru l i n g is i rreco n ci l a b l e w i th F i f t h C i r c u i tp r e c e d e n t ; ( 4 ) t h e g o v e r n me n t h a s i d e n t i f i e d a t l e a s t t we n t y - t wo ot h er “ col d cases” f

rom t h e ci vi lri gh t s era t h at are currentl y u n der i n vest i gati on i n t hi s c i r c ui t , s o m e o f w hi c h m ay fac e t he s am e l i m i t at i o ns i s s ue no w be f o r e t he
en ba n c cou rt; an d ( 5 ) con sider a ti on s of j u d i ci a lecon om y a n d S ea l e’ s i l lh ea l th
c o u n s e l in fa v o ro f e x p e d ite d re s o lu tio n o f th e is s u e b y th e S u p r e m e C o u r t. III . A m ajo r ity o f th e e n b a n c c o u r t h a s d e t e r m i n e d t h a t c e r t i f i c a tio n is
a p p r o p r ia t e in th is c a s e . W e r e j e c t th e g o v e r n m e n t ’s s u g g e s t io n th a t S e a le ’s
m o t i o n was pr o c e dur al l y i m pr o pe r . Se al e ’ s m o t i o n e xp l i c i t l y r e c o gni z e s t hatt he
c er t i f i c at i on dec i si on i s di sc r et i onar y w i t h t he en banc c our t
. Som e c i r c ui t s have q u e s t i o n e d th e p r o p r ie ty o f a p a r ty re c o m m e n d in gce r tific a tio n . See , e . g. , Kro n b ergv . Ha le , 181 F. 2d 767 ( 9t h C i r . 1950)

. W e t hi nk t he “bet t ervi ew i s t hat
c o u n s e l m a y m o v e fo r o rs u g g e s t c e r tific a tio n , b u t t h e m a tt e r re s ts e x c lu s iv e ly i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f

t h e c o u r to f

a p p e a l s . ” E u g e n e G r e s s ma n e t a l
. , S u p r e me C ou rtP ract i ce § 9 .2 (9 th e d . 2 0 0 7 ). T h e Su prem e C ou rt ori gi n al l y received j u ri sdi ct i on t o an sw er c ert i f i ed q u e s tio n s fr o m e q u a lly d iv id e d cir c u it c o u r ts in 1 8 0 2 , see 2 S tat
. 156, 159, al t h ou gh i t s c ert i f

i cat i o n j ur i s di c t i o n ha s s i gnif i c ant l y br o ad e ne d si n ce t h at t i m e. S ee 28 U
. S. C. § 1 25 4( 2)

. Tw o of t he fo urc e r t i f

i c at i o ns g r ant e d b e t w e e n 1 94 6 and 20 06 w e r e c e r t i f

i e d que s t i o ns f

r o m e qua l l y di vi de d c i r c ui t c o ur t s , i nc l udi ng o ne fr o m th is co u r t. S ee Un itedS ta tes v. B a rn ett , 3 7 6 U .S

. 6 8 1 (19 6 4 ); Un i t ed S t ate s v. R i ce , 3 27 U
. S. 7 42 ( 19 46 )

. Bec aus e i t i s t he t as k o f t he c i r c ui t c o ur t s “ t o de c i de al lproperl y presented cases c om i n g bef ore i t , ” t h e Su prem e C ou rtha s w arn ed th a t ce rti fi ca ti on is p rop er on l y in “rare i n stan ces.” Wi snie w skiv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 3 5 3 U .S . 9 0 1 , 9 0 2 (1 9 5 7 ). Th i s i s an i ss ue o f

f i r sti m pre ss i on and nat i onali m por t ance . The nom i nal af f i r m anc e of

Sea l e ’ s l i fe se nt e nc e by an e qua l l y di vi de d e n b anc c o ur t i s t he t yp eN o. 07- 60732

8 o f r a r e in s ta n c e w h e r e c e r tific a tio n is a p p r o p r ia te
. S ee D u rrant v. E ssex Co. , 74 U .S

. (7 W a ll .) 1 0 7 , 1 1 2 (1 8 6 8 ) (re g a rd in gth e le g a l effec t of a tie v o te a ffi rm a n ce ). B y cert i f

yi n g t h i s questi on regardi n g t h e s ta tu t e of l i m i t ati on s, w e are not i gn ori n g ou r obli gati on t o deci de a p roperl y presented case; t h e even l y di vi ded
en b a n c cou rt w a s si m p l y u n a b l e to rea ch a d ecisi on . B a sed on the u n i q u e facts
o f t h i s c as e , w e f

i nd c e r t i f

i c at i o n a dv i s ab l e “ i n t he pr o pe r a dm i ni s t r at i o n a nd
ex p ed i ti on of j u d i ci a lbu sine ss. ” Wi s ni e w s ki , 3 5 3 U .S . a t 9 0 2
. Th e G ove r nm ent se eks t o es t abl i sh pre c ede nt f or f i l i ng ot hercri m i n al i n d i ctm en ts rel a ti n g to u n reso l ve d ci vilri gh ts era crim es; h ow ev er, th e t i e v ote af f i r m anc e r e nde r e d b y t he e n b anc court c o nt ai ns no r e as o ne d a nal ys i s a nd h ol ds n o preceden t i al value. S eal e gets n o rel i ef f rom h i s cl ai m of

a t i m e- barred p rose cu ti on , an d the G ov er n m e n t g ets n o p rece d en t up on w h i ch to pro secu te ot her“ c ol d c as es ” under § 1 201. Th i s di sc r et e l egal i ss ue needs t o be r es ol ved by t h e Su prem e C ou rti n order t o gi ve gu i da n ce i n f u t u re c ases. W e cert i f

y t h e fol l ow i n g qu est i on t o t h e Su prem e C ou rt : W h at s t atute of l i m i t at i o ns a ppl i e s t o a pr o s e cuti on u n der1 8 U
. S. C. § 1 20 1 f o r a ki dna pi ng of fen se t h at oc curred i n 196 4 bu t w as not i n di ct ed u n t i l200 7? T h e resol u t i on of t h i s qu est i on hi n ges up on w h et h er Jac ks o n and t he 1972 A ct , ei t h er al on e or i n com bi n ati on , res u l t ed i n a rec l assi f i cat i on of

§ 1201 f

rom c api t alunder § 3 281 t o no n- c api t alunder § 3 282, and i f s o, w het hert hat reclass i fi ca ti on i s retroa cti ve l y a p p l i ca b l e to S ea l e’ s con d u ct. QUE S T I ON C ER T I F I ED
.N o. 07- 60732

See United States v. Rice , 32 7U.S

. 7 4 2 ( 1 9 4 6); Uni ted States v . Bar nett , 37 6 U .S. 68 1 1 (1 9 6 4); M

o o d y v . A l b e r m a r le P

a p er C o. , 4 1 7U .S

. 6 2 2 ( 1 9 7 4); I ra nN at ’l A ir li n esC

or p. v . MarshalkC

o. , 45 3 U .S. 91 9 (1 981 ). “ [T]h e Court has made the statutoryprovi sionauthoriz ing the certificat e procedure virtu ally, butnot quite , a dead lette r . ” E UG ENE G RESSM AN ET AL ., S UPREM E C O URT P RACTI CE 5 9 7( 9 the d. 2 0 0 7). 9 JON ES, C h i ef

J udg e , t o ge t he rw i t h J udg e s K I N G , W I EN ER , CLE M EN T and O W E N , di ss ent i ng: I r e s pe c t f

ul l y di s s e ntf

r o m t he m aj o r i t y’ s de c i s i o n c e r t i f yi n g t o t he S u prem e C ou rta pu rel y i n t erl ocutory questi on : w h et h er t h e prosecuti on of S eal e f or a fatalki dn ap pi n g t h at oc curred i n 196 4 bu t w as not i n di ct ed u n d er fede r all aw u nt i l2007 i s bar r ed by a fede r all i m i t at i ons per i od. Thi s c our tw as

even l y di vi ded on en ban c r eh eari n g an d reach e d n o res ol u t i on of t h e i ssue. S eal e’ s app e alw as r e l e ga t e d f o r c o ns i de r at i o n o f

hi s r e m ai ni ng i s s ue s t o t he t h ree- j u dg e pan elt h at h ad b een p revi ou sl y responsi bl e forthe case bu t ha d n ot rul ed on t h ose ot h er poi n t s. A l th ou gh the certi fi ca ti on fa l l s w i th i n the pe rm i ssible scop e of S u p . C t. R u l e 19, i ti s not w ort h t h i s busy cou rt ’ s t i m e or t h at of the al so- bu sy Su prem e Cour tt o pur s ue t hatpa t h. The l i ke l i ho o d of t he Cour t ’ s a c c e pt i ng c e r t i f i c at i o n, bas ed on past usage , i s vi r t ual l y ni l
. Th e C our t has ac c ept ed R ul e 19 cert i f i cat i on s onl y f

ou r t i m es i n m ore t h an si xty yea rs. T o seek cer t i f i cat i on of 1

a n i n terlocu tory ap p ell a te d ecisi on i s also im p ru d en t, esp eciall y w h ere , l eft to i ts

ow n devi c es , t he panel dec i si on m i ght ul t i m at el y r eve r se t he c onvi c t i on. Fi nal l y, I c o r di al l y di s ag r e e w i t h Judg e D e M o s s ’ s pr e di c t i o n t hatt hi s l i m i t at i o ns i s s ue

m ayb e aro n t w o do z e n o r s o c o l d c as e s o f ugl y r ac i al vi o l e nc e r e m ai ni ng f r o m t heN o. 07- 60732

10 earl y 196 0s. Th e l et t er f rom t h e C i vi lR i gh t s D i vi si on of t h e D epa rt m en tof J u sti ce w a s fa r f

rom cl ea r on this po i n t.N o. 07- 60732

11 Ju dg e ST E W A R T di ssents
.