2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

7-27-2010 

# U SA v . Mich a el B ank

off

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-3275

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin
. C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . Mich a e l B a nkoff " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 824. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/824P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N os . 08- 3275 & 08- 3688

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. M I CH A EL B A N K O FF,

A ppel l ant/C r os s - A ppel l ee

A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D

. C

. C r i m i nal A ct i on N o. 2- 07- cr - 00185- 001) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e M i chae l M

. B ay l s on

A r gued J une 3, 2010

B efor e: A M B R O , C H A G A R E S, and V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges O pi ni on fi l ed: J ul y27, 20102 T hom as A

. D r ey er , E s qui r e ( A r gued) 6 D i cki ns on D r i ve B ui l di ng 100, Sui t e 106 C hadds For d, PA 19317 C ouns el forA ppel l ant( C r os s - A ppel l ee) M i chae l L

. L evy U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney R ober tA

. Z auzmer A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t or ney C h ief o f A p p e a ls B ernadett e A

. M cK eon ( A r gued) A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t or ney Jaso n B o log n a, E sq u ir e O ffi ce of U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney 615 C hes t nutSt r eet Sui t e 1250 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106 C o u n se l f

o r A p p e llee (C ro ss -A p p e llan t)

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge Sect i on 115 of T i t l e 18 of t he U ni t ed St at es C ode makes i ta cr i m e t o “thr eat en[] t o as s aul t , ki d n ap, orm ur der

. . . an3 o ff ici al w hos e ki l l i ng w oul d be a c r i m e under ” § 1114 of that T i t l e. 18 U

. S. C

. § 115( a) ( 1) ( B )

. Sect i on 1114, i n turn, m akes i ta cr i m e t o ki l l “any o ff icer o rempl oy ee of

t he U ni t ed St at es oro f an y agenc yi n anybr anch of t he U ni t ed St at es G o v e rn m e n t.” 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 1 4 . T h is c a se re q u ire s u s to d e te r m in e w h e th e r § 1 1 5 in c o rp o ra tes b yre f e re n c e a ll in d iv id u a ls c o v e re d b y§ 1 1 1 4

— in c lu d in g a n y“ e m p lo y e e o f

. . . an y agenc yi n anybr anch of t he” f eder al governm ent

— or i n s t e a d , b yu s i n g t h e t e r m “ o f f i c i a l , ” i n c o rp o r a t e s o n l ys o me l i m i t ed sub setof those i nd i vidual s. I n M ar ch 2 0 08, M i chae l B ankoff w as convi ct ed of thr eaten ing tw o em p loy ee s o f th e S o cial S ec u r i tyA dm i ni s tr at i on ( “SSA ”) i n vi ol at i on of § 115 , as char ged i n C ount s T w o and T hr ee of t he I ndi ctm ent
. T he D i s t r i ct C our t gr ant ed a j udgm ent o f a c q u itt a l o n C o u n t T h re e , co n c lu d in g th a t th e e m p lo y e e in ques t i on— an SSA “cl ai m s r epr es ent at i ve”— di d not qual i fyas an “of fi ci al ” bec aus e s he per for m ed onl y“r out i ne and s ubor di nat e funct i ons . ” T he C our t deni ed B ankoff’ s m ot i on for a j udgm entof ac qui t t al o n C ountT w o, concl udi ng t hatt he empl o y ee i n ques t i on— an SSA “oper a t i ons s upervi s or ”— qual i fi ed as an “off i ci al ” bec aus e s he s uper vi s ed per s ons w ho “had t he aut hor i t yt o adj udi cat e cl ai m s on behal f of t he fe der al governm ent
. ”
T h o u g h B a n k o f

f is n o t th e f

irst d e f e n d a n t su c c e ss f

u llySee, e. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. A r m el , 5 8 5 F .3 d 1 8 2 , 1 8 5 (4 th 1 C i r . 2009) ( aff

i r m i ng convi ct i on under§ 115 for thr eat eni ng “FB I agent s and s uppor ts t aff , ” i ncl udi ng a sec r et ary , ata l ocal F B I o f f ice ); U nit ed St ates v. C ash , 3 9 4 F

. 3 d 5 6 0 , 5 6 1 (7th C ir

. 2005) ( aff

i r m i ng convi ct i on under§ 115 fort hr eat eni ng a “[ s]erv ice [ r]ep rese n tat ive” at a loc al V eteran s A ff airs of fice ). 4 p r o s e c u te d u n d e r § 1 1 5 f o r t h re a te n in g a f

e d e ra l “ e m p lo y e e ,” 1 w e a re the firstfe d era l app ell ate c o u rt f a c e d w ith the s tatu tory i nt erpr et at i on i s s ue pr es ent ed h ere . W e hol d t hat§ 115 i ncorpor at es byr efe r ence al l per s ons cover ed b y § 1114, and, acc or di ngl y , t hat§ 115 appl i es to threa t s agai ns tfede r al “empl oy ee[ s ] ” “w hos e ki l l i ng w oul d be a cr i m e under ” § 1114. B eca us e § 115 appl i es t o bo th of the empl oy ees B ankoff t hr eat ened, w e aff

i r m t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s deni al of a j udgm ent of a c q u i t t a l o n Cou n t Two, v a c a t e i t s g r a n t o f a j u d g m ent of acqu i t t al on C ou nt Th ree, and rem and for further proceedings.
I . Backg r ound
A

. T he O ffe ns e C onduct
In 1 9 9 9 , B a n k o f

f b e g a n re c e iv in g S o c ia l S e c u rity di s abi li tybenef

i t s . I n a s er i es of l et t er s s entt o B ankoff fr om D ece m ber2001 t hr ough M ay 2005, t he S SA i nfor m ed hi m t hat it had overpai d $9, 000 i n benef i t s t o hi m and thathe w as re q u ir e d to re p a yth a t a m o u n t. S S A c laim s a d

ju ste r D a n iel S p h a b m ix y w a s a ss ig n e d to5 B ankoff’ s cas e i n l at e 2006. B ankoff cal l ed Sphabmi xys ever al ti m es to d ispu te t h e o v erp ay m en t. A fter rev iew ing B an k o ff ’s fi l e , Spha bm i xydet erm i ned thatB ankoff ( 1) w as r es pons i bl e for t he err or , and (2) had fai l ed t o pr ovi de s uffi ci enti nfor m at i on r e g a r d i n g h i s i n a b i l i t yt o r e p a yt h e a mo u n to v e r pa i d t o h i m. A ccor di ngl y , Sphabm i xydeni ed B ankoff’ s r eques t to w ai ve re p a ym e n t. O n F e b ru a ry2 6 , 2 0 0 7 , B a n k o f f c a lled S p h a b m ix yto compl ai n about t he deni al of t he w ai ver . B ankoff w as l oud and pr ofane , and t ol d Sphabm i xyt hathe w as goi ng t o come t o t he o f f i c e a n d “ k i c k t h e s h i to u to f h i m. ” Ba n k o f

f a l s o l e f tt wo v o ic e m a ils f

o r S p h a b m ix yth a t w e re th re a te n in g in n a tu re . Sphabm i xyal er t ed hi s “oper at i ons s uper vi s or ”— Susa n T oni k— and sec ur i t y per s onnel about B ankoff’ s t hr eat s . T oni k, i n tur n, not i fi ed t he Feder al Pr ot ect i ve Ser vi ce. B ankoff cal l ed T oni k l at eri n t he day on February 26 t o apol ogi ze f orhi s phone cal l t o Sphabm i xy , b u t agai n cont es t ed the overpaym enti s s ue. B ankoff s chedul ed a m eet i ng forM ar ch 9, 2007 w i t h an SSA cl ai m s r epr es ent at i ve r egar d ing the overpaym enti s s ue. H ow ever , B ankoff cal l ed Toni k t he morni ng of M ar ch 9 and canc el l ed t he meet i ng. H e t ol d T oni k t hathe w ant ed eve r y t hi ng r es ol ved overt he p h o n e, and agai n w as angry , l oud, pr ofane , and, acc or di ng t o T oni k, “outof contr ol

. ” Toni k t ol d B ankoff t hat s he w as unabl e t o s chedul e a t el ephone c onfer ence w i t h t he a s s i g n e d c l a i m s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e t h a td a y.6 Fol l ow i ng t hi s conver s at i on, B ankoff l efta voi cemai l on T oni k’ s t el ephone, i n w hi ch he s hout ed: [S] om ebodyoughtt o s pi ti n t hatbi t ch’ s fac e, s he does n’ tkno w h o w t o t al k t o peopl e. She t hi nks I ’ m a chi l d, I ’ m a gr ow n up . . . . I w i l l s m ack the sh it o u t o f

th a t b itc h . I’ll t a k e th e little m i s demeanorchar g e. W hatar e theygonna do, fi ne me?
T o n ik b e c a m e “ v e ryw o rrie d a n d v e rysc a re d ” a f ter listen in g to t hi s m es s age, and fe ar ed B ankoff’ s “thr eatw as r eal

. ”
B ankoff al s o sp o k e w i t h SSA cl ai m s r epr es ent at i ve C ry st al R ob i nson several t i m es on M arch 9. In o ne o f t hese c o n v e rsa tio n s , B a n k o f f c o m p lain e d a b o u t T o n ik a n d to ld R obi nso n t hathe w oul d come t o t he off i ce, t ake the gun aw ay f ro m “ th e p ig u p f

ro n t,” a n d “ s la p e v e ry w o m a n in th e p la c e .”
B

. B ankoff’ s M ot i on t o D i s m i s s t he I ndi ctm ent
I n A pr i l 2007, a fe der al gr and j ur yr etur ned a thr ee- count i ndi ctm entchar gi ng B ankoff w i t h t hr eat eni ng empl oy ees of the S S A , in v io latio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 . S e c tio n 1 1 5 p ro v id e s in p e rtin e n t p a rt: W ho ever. . . t hr eat ens t o as s aul t , ki dnap, or m ur der , a U ni t ed Stat es off i ci al , a U ni t ed St at es j u d g e , a F e d e ra l la w e n f o rc e m e n t o f

f ic e r, o r anT h e d e f e n d a n t in F ent on w a s c h a rg e d u n d e r § 1 1 5 w ith 2 t hr e a t e ni ng a l e gi s l a t i ve a i de t o the l a t e Repr e s e nt a t i ve J oh n P. M u rth a o f P en n sy lvan ia. T h e D istri ct C o u rtg ran ted F e n ton ’s m ot i on t o di s m iss the ind ict m en t, co n clud ing t hat R epr es ent at i ve M ur t ha’ s l e g i s l a t i v e a i d e c o u l d n o tbe cons i der ed 7 of f i ci alw hos e ki l l i ng w ould be a cr i m e under[ 18 U

. S. C

. § 1114] , w i t h i nt entt o i m pede, i nt i m i dat e, ori nt er fer e w i t h s uch off i ci al , j udge, orl aw enfor cement o ffi cerw hi l e enga ged i n t he p e rf o rm a n c e o f

o f f icia l d u ties , o r w ith in ten t to r et al i at e aga i ns ts uch off i ci al , jud g e, orl aw enfor cement offi cer on a c c o u n t of t he per for m ance of off

i ci al dut i es , s hal l be puni s hed as p rov ided in su b sec ti o n (b).
1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 1 5 (a)(1) (em p h asis ad d ed ).
B ankoff m oved t o di s m i s s t he i ndi ctm ent on t he gr ound t hat hi s al l eged vi ct i m s

— Sphabm i xy , T oni k, and R o b in so n

— d id n o t q u a lifya s “ o f f icia l[ s] w h o se k ill in g w o u ld be a c r i m e under ” § 1114. 18 U

. S. C

. § 115. R el y i ng on U ni t ed St at es v. Fent on , 10 F. Supp. 2d 501 (W

. D

. Pa. 1998)

— t he s i ngl e r epor t ed dec i s i on bya fe der al cour tt hat ad d r es s es t he m eani ng of the t erm “off i ci al ” i n § 115— B ankoff ar gued that § 115 does noti ncorpor at e al l per s ons pr ot ect ed by§ 1114, but onl y“off i cer [s ]

. ” See i d. a t5 0 3 n . 2 ( r e a s o n i ng t ha tt h e t e r ms “off i ci al ” and “ offi cer ” ar e “cl os el y r el at ed and

. . . can onl ybe cons t rued t o have t he s ame m eani ng”)

. A ccor di ngl y , B ankoff 2a n “ o f f icia l” o r a n “ o f

f ice r” b e c a u se h e “ u n d e rta k e s to d o o n ly t hat w hich t he C on gress m an d i rect s, and do es not exerci se i ndepende ntauthor i t y o r di s cr et i on i n admi ni s t er i ng t he l egi s l at i ve pow erof the governm ent
. ” I d. a t 5 0 7

. 8 argued t hat § 115 do es not applyt o thr e a t s m ade ag ai nst

“ e m p lo y e e s ” lik e S p h a b m ix y , T o n ik , a n d R o b in s o n . T h e D istric t C o u rt d isa g re e d , co n c lu d in g th a t “th e p lain l anguage ” of §§ 115 and 1114, “t aken as a w hol e, i ndi cat es t hat

‘ offi ci al ’ encompas s es [an] ‘ offi cerorempl oy ee. ’ ” I ts t at ed, how ever , t hati t s concl us i on r egar di ng t he def i ni t i on of “off i ci al ” w as o nly prel i m i nary , and i ti nv i t ed B ank off t o rai se t he i s s ue aga i n at t r i al

. T he C our tt hus deni ed B ankoff’ s m ot i on. C

. T he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s J ur yI ns t ruct i ons N ea r th e e n d o f tri al, an d d esp it e it s p re li m inary concl us i on t hat§ 115 appl i es t o any“off icer orempl oy ee” cover ed by § 1 1 1 4 , t he D i s t r i ctC our tpr opos ed t o i ns t ructt he j ur y t hat , i n addi t i on t o fi ndi ng bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtt hat Sphabm i xy , T oni k, and R obi ns on w er e “of fi cer [s] ” or

“ e m p lo y e e s” w h o se k ill in g w o u ld b e a c rim e u n d e r § 1 1 1 4 , it m u st al so fin d tha t theyw ere “f ed era l of ficials. ” T h e C o u rt pr opos ed t o defi ne “of

fi ci al ” as a per s on
author i zed t o ex erc ise g o v ern m en t al funct i ons and to m a k e d e c isio n s o n b e h a lf o f th e G o v e rn m e n t. A n o f f icia l is a p e rso n w h o is a u th o riz e d to9 exer ci s e hi s orherdi s cr et i on i n t he per for m ance of h i s or he r go vernm ental du t i es, as dis t i nguis hed f

r om an empl oyee wh o p e r f o r ms rout i ne an d sub ordi nate functi on s. T he G overnm entobj ect ed, ar gui ng that t he pr opos ed in stru c tio n w a s in c o n s is ten t w ith th e C o u rt’s c o n c lu sio n (in deny i ng B ankoff’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s the indi ctm ent ) t hatt he t erm “off i ci al ” i n § 115 encompas s es any“off i cerorempl oy ee” w hos e ki l l i ng w oul d be a cr i m e under§ 1114. T he G overnm ent ( pr es ci ent l y ) expr es s ed co n cern t hat , fol l ow i ng t he conc l us i on of tr i al , B ankoff

w oul d at t empt t o ar gue th at the G overnm ent h a d fa il ed to p rov e tha t anyo f B an k o ff ’s th ree v ict im s w ere “off i ci al s ” under the C our t ’ s pr opos ed def i ni t i on and s eek a ju d g m e n t o f

a c q u itta l o n th a t b a s is

. T h e D istric t C o u rt re c o g n ize d th a t ith a d m o d if ied its pr el i m i naryrul i ng. I tnonethel es s expl ai ned thati thad a sl i ghtpr obl em w i t h t he G overnm ent ’s expans i ve vi ew poi nt
. B eca us e i f y ou s ay t hatt he w or d offi ci al i n [§] 115 by r efe r ence t o offi ceror empl oy ee i n [§] 1114 .

. . i ncorpor at es by r e f e re n c e e v e rye m p lo y e e , n o m a tter h o w lo w ly th e ym a yb e , I t h in k th a t’ s a le a p . T he C our t gave one exampl e t o expl ai n i t s conce r n: a jani t or em p loy ed b ya f

ed era l age n cy , a p erso n w h o m th e C o u rt doubt ed w oul d qual i fy“i n [] l ayt erm [s ] as [an] offi ci al

. ”10 A ft erbot h s i des r es t ed att r i al , t he D i s t r i ctC our tgave the i ns t ruct i on i thad pr opos ed ( i ncl udi ng i t s defi ni t i on of an

“ o f f icia l”) . T h e ju ry f

o u n d B a n k o f

f g u iltyo f th re a ten in g T o n ik and R o bi ns on ( C ount s T w o and Thre e) , butacqui t t ed hi m of th re a te n in g S p h a b m ix y(C o u n t O n e ).
D

. B ankoff’ s M ot i on fora J udgm entof A cqui t t al Fol l ow i ng t he ver di ct , B ankoff m oved fora j udgm entof acqui t t al on t he C ount s char gi ng hi m w i t h t hr eat eni ng T oni k and R o b in so n , arg u in g th a t th e trial e v id e n c e w a s in su f f icie n t to pr ove thatt heyw er e “of fi ci al s ” w i t hin the m eani ng of § 115. See Fed. R

. C r i m . P. 2 9 (c). T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed the m ot i on as t o T oni k, r eas oni ng t hats he w as an “ope r at i ons s upervi s or ” w ho “over s aw t h e dai l yoper at i on of the s uppl ement al s ecur i t yi ncome pr ogr am i n t he l ocal fi el d offi ce” a n d “ su p e rv ise d ‘c laim s re p re se n tativ e s’ w h o h a d th e a u th o rity t o a d j u d i c a t e c l a i ms o n b e h a l f o f t h e f e d e r a l g o v e r n me n t
. ” As s uch, t he C our tdet er m i ned ther e w as s uffi ci entevi dence t hat T oni k “m ad e deci s i ons on behal f of the governm entand t her efor e w as a fe der al offi ci al

. ”
T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed the mot i on as t o R obi ns on becau se her “t est i m on yas t o h er j ob du t i es d[i d] not i nd i cate t h a t s h e m a d e d e c is io n s o n b e h a lf o f th e g o v e rn m e n t.” R obi ns on “di d nothave t he author i t y t o hi r e ors uper vi s e other empl oy ees , ” and he r “us ual j ob dut i es ” i ncl uded “a ns w er i ng t he t el ephones

. ” The C our tt hus concl uded thatR obi ns on w as not an “of fi ci al ” and, i n l i ghtof thatconcl us i on, decl i ned t o r eac h11 B ank o ff ’ s ot hert w o ar gum ent s

— t hatt he evi dence w as i nsuff i ci ent t o p rove t hat he ( 1) m a d e a “ t rue threat ” against R o b in so n , o r (2 ) a c ted w ith th e sp e c if ic in ten t o f

in ter f e rin g w ith orr et al i at i ng agai ns tR obi ns on for pe r for m i ng her“off i ci al dut i es . ”
E

. B ankoff’ s R eques t s t o Pr ocee d P r o Se O n s ever al occa s i ons pr i ort o t r i al , B ankoff told t he D istric t C o u rt th a t h e w ish e d to re p re se n t h im se lf d u rin g trial. H e r ei t er at ed thi s r eques tdur i ng a fi nal pr etr i al hear i ng i n M ar ch 2008. T he C our t conduct ed an ext ens i ve col l oquyw i t h B ankoff (i n a c c o rd a n c e w ith o u r p re c e d e n t, see U nited Stat es v. Pep

pers , 3 0 2 F. 3d 120 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ) , advi s ed hi m of the r i s ks of r epr es ent i ng hi m s el f, and s t r ongl yadvi s ed hi m agai ns tdoi ng s o. I tal s o advi sed B ankoff t hathi s couns el w oul d r emai n as sta n d b yc o u n se l (a n d w o u ld b e a v a ilab le to tak e o v e r th e trial if B ankoff change d hi s m i nd) , buts t r es s ed thathe w oul d notbe a l l o we d t o s wi t c h b a c k a n d f o r t h wi t h c o u n s e l d u r i n g t r i a l

. At th e e n d o f

th is c o llo q u y , the C o u rt g ra n ted B a n k o f f ’s r e q u e st to pr ocee d pro se . B efor e the fi nal pr etr i al confe r ence concl uded, B ankoff ch an g ed h is m ind

. D u ri n g a c o n v e rsati o n reg ard ing jury i ns t ruct i ons , t he D i s t r i ctC our tagai n s ugges t ed t hat i tw as a bad i dea f orB ankoff

t o r epr es enthi m s el f: [The C our t ] : I don’t think t hat , w i t h t he l i m i t ed educa t i on t haty ou have of a G E D

— but y ou’ r e a12 bri gh tfel l ow , y ou kn ow , and I— I w ant t o s tate t h a t o n t h e r e c o r d

. Y o u h a v e a g o o d v o c a b u l a r y. Y ou ’r e art i culat e. Y ou un derst and m yqu est i on s. A nd , ho w ever brighty ou are, y ou ’r e j ust

— I j ust don’ tt hi nk y ou’ r e pr epar ed t o defe nd y our s el f as w e ll a s y o u r l a w y e rs c a n . [B an k o ff ]: I th ink y o u ’re ri g h t, Y o u r H o n o r. [ T h e C o u rt]: A ll righ t. [B ankoff ] : I t hi nk I

— I change d m ym i nd. I t hi nk I— I th ink I— [The C our t ] : W el l , y ou don ’t h av e t o m ake a deci s i on toda y . Y ou oughtt o s l eep on thi s and t al k t o y ourl aw y ers om e more . [B ankoff ] : W ell , I spoke t o t hem, and I w as think ing ab o u t i t fo r— fo r a w h il e, an d I— I t h i n k

— I t h i n k t h a tt h e y ’ r e

— t h e y ’ r e

— [ my att o rne y ] M s. R im m er d id v eryw ell to d a y . I think sh e d id rea l g o o d

. [M y o ther att o rne y , ] M r. M cH ug h, som et i m es, h e did goo d; s om et i m es, t her e w as a coupl e of thi ngs that

— I t hi nk I’l l— I’l l st ick w ith m yteam , Y o u r H o n o r. I c h a n g e d m y m in d , an d I’m so rryto t r o u b l e t h e Cou r t wi t h t h e s e , y o u k n o w, u p s and13 do w ns— [ T h e C o u rt ]: A ll r ig h t. [B an k o ff ]: — flu ctua ti o n s, w h atev er— D e sp ite B a n k o f

f ’s s tate m e n ts th a t h e n o lo n g e r w ish e d to pr ocee d pro se , th e C o u rt in f o rm e d h im th a t if h e “ w a n t[ e d ] to re p re se n t [ h im se lf

] n e x t M o n d a y[ th e f

irst d a yo f

trial] , [it w oul d] l et[hi m ] do i t , but

. . . i t ’ s a verybad i dea. ”
T r i al began the fol l ow i ng M onday , and nei t herB ankoff n o r h is c o u n se l ra ise d th e iss u e o f se lf -re p r e s e n ta tio n p rio r to j ur ys el ect i on oropeni ng s t at ement s . H o w ev er, B ankoff re p e a ted lyin ter ru p ted th e p ro se c u to r’s o p e n in g sta tem e n t w ith ar gum ent at i ve obj ect i on s, and, aft ert he pr os ecut orconcl uded, B ankoff demanded t o gi ve the openi ng s t at em en t f ort he d e f e n se . T h e C o u rt in f

o rm e d B a n k o f

f th a t itw o u ld n o t p e rm it h im to re p re se n t h im se lf th a t d a y, b u t w o u ld a d d re ss h is obj ect i ons att he end of t he day( aft ert he j ur yhad bee n r e l e a s e d )

. O n e w i t n e s s f o rt h e G o v e r n m e n t( S p h a b m i x y) t est i fi ed thatday , and B ank off ’s co u n se l co nd ucted t he crosse x a m in a tio n . A ft ert he jury w as di s m i s s ed, t he D i s t r i ctC our thel d an on - t h e - r e c o r d c o n f

e r e n c e wi t h t h e p a r t i e s . Ba n k o f f d e n i e d he had eve r w it h d r aw n hi s r eques tt o pr ocee d pro se , and compl ai ned thathe had notbeen pe r m i t ted t o cr os s - exami ne Sphabm i xy . T he C our t agai n advi s ed B ankoff t hathe coul d not14 “have i tbot h w ay s , ” and a s ked hi m i f he w an ted to r epr es ent hi m s el f fort he r es tof tr i al

. B ankoff d ec lared t hati tw as “t oo l at e, ” and thathe w as “jus t g o n n a have t o l et[hi s at t or ney ] go forw ar d fr om now . ”
B u t o n T u e sd a ym o r n in g B a n k o f f a g a in d e m a n d e d to pr ocee d pro se . T h e D istric t C o u rt ru led th a t h is c o u n se l w o u ld fi ni s h t he cr os s - exami nat i on of Sph abm i xy . O nce c r os s w as compl et ed, how ever , t he C our tper m i t t ed B ankoff t o r epres ent hi m s el f. H e cr os s - exami ned the G overnm ent ’ s r emai ni ng w i t nes s es ( T oni k, R obi ns on, and Feder al Pr ot ect i ve Ser vi ces Speci al A gentJ es s e K unkl e) , and the C our t al s o al l ow ed B ankoff t o cr oss-exa m i ne Sphabmi xyaft ert he G overnm ent re s te d

. B ankoff

chos e t o pr es enta def

ens e, cal l i ng h is father and a psy chi atr i s t t o t es t i fy on hi s behal f. B ankoff’ s fatherw as unabl e t o ans w ers om e of hi s s on’ s ques t i on s aft erbecomi ng em o ti o n al, an d th e D is tr ic t C o u rt

— w it h B an k o ff ’s cons ent

— perm i t t ed st andbycouns el t o fi ni s h t he di r ect e x a m in a tio n . A tt he cl os e of tr i al , B ankoff’ s couns el gave the cl os i ng stat ement fort he def

ens e af t erB ankoff

w as r emoved fr om t he cou rtroom foll ow i ng an an gry , profan e, and l eng t hyou tb u rst ( w hi ch occ ur r ed out s i de o f the j ur y ’ s pr es ence )

. T he D i s t r i ct C our t i nfor m ed t he j ur y t hat B ankoff had “el ect ed byhi s w or ds and cond u c tt o n o tb e p r e s e n t ” f o rt h e c o n c l u s i o n of s um m at i ons . T he C our tn o n ethe le s s t ook car e t o i ns t ructt heT he D i s t r i ct C our t had j ur i s di ct i on under 18 U

. S. C

. § 3231. 3 W e have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on overB ankoff’ s appea l under28 U

. S. C

. § 1291 and 18 U

. S

. C

. § 3742( a) , and overt he G o v e rn m e n t’ s c ro s s -a p p e a l u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 3 1

. B ankoff al s o chal l enges t he r eas onabl enes s of the D i s t r i ct 4 C o ur t ’ s s ent ence . I n l i ghtof ourdi s pos i t i on of the 15 jury that i tw as “nott o us e” Bankoff’ s “w or ds orhi s conduct dur i ng t he tr i al ” “f

oranypurpos e i n [i t s ] del i ber at i ons . ”
A s not ed, B ankoff

w as convi ct ed on tw o of the thr ee count s a n d t h e Di s t r i c tCou r to v e r tu r n e d o n e o f t h e m, l e a v i ng onl y t h e c o n v i c t i o n f

o rt h r e a t e n i n g To n i k ( Cou n tTwo)

. T he C o u rt th e n se n ten c e d B a n k o f f to 6 0 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t, w hi ch r epr es ent ed a ni ne- m ont h upw ar d var i ance fro m t he advi s or yG ui del i nes r ange of 41- 51 m ont hs

. T hi s t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed. 3
I I . D i s cus s i on Ba n k o f f a r gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr oneous l ydeni ed hi s m ot i on fora j udgm entof ac qu itt al on t he C ountchar gi ng hi m w i t h t hr ea teni ng T oni k ( C ountT w o) ; t he G overnm ent cr os s - appea l s t he C our t ’ s gr antof a j udgm entof ac qui t t al on t he C ountchar gi ng B ankoff w i t h t hr eat eni n g R obi ns on ( C ount T hr e e )

. I n a d d i t i o n , Ba n k o f f c o n t e n d s t h a tt h e Cou r td e p r i v ed h im o f h is rig h t o f

se lf

- r e p r e s e n tatio n in v io latio n o f th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t. 4G o v ern m en t’ s cro ss-ap p ea l ( w h ere in w e v ac ate the C o u rt ’s gr antof a j udgm ent of acqui t t al as t o C ount T hr ee) , w e nee d not a d d re s s th a t c la im

. 16 W e conc l ude thatt he D i s t r ict C our terr ed i n gr ant i ng a j udgm entof ac qu it t al as t o R obi ns on, and thus vaca t e the C our t ’ s j udgm enton t hatC ount
. W e af fi r m t he C our t ’ s deni al of a j udgm entof acqui t t al as t o T oni k, buton a di ffe r entgr ound. F i n a l l y , we r e

j e c tBa n k o f

f ’ s S i x t h Ame n d me n tc l a i m. A

. B a n k o f

f ’s M o tio n f

o r a Ju d g m e n t o f

A c q u itt a l
T o d e te r m in e w h e th e r th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in its rul i ng s on B ank off ’s m oti on for a j ud gm ent of acqu i t t al , w e fi rs t interpre t § 1 1 5

. W e h av e plen ary rev iew o v er a d istri ct co u rt ’s in te rp re ta tio n o f

a s ta tu te , U

nited St ates v. Introcaso , 506 F. 3d 260, 264 n. 3 ( 3d C i r . 2007) , as w el l as i t s g ran t o r deni al of a j udgm entof ac qui t t al bas ed o n s uffi ci encyof the evi dence , U ni t ed Stat es v. St ar nes , 5 8 3 F .3 d 1 9 6 , 2 0 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ).

1. T he Textof § 115
“C our t s i n appl y i ng cr i m i nal l aw s gener al l y m us tfol l ow th e p la in a n d u n a m b ig u o u s m e a n in g o f th e s ta tu to ry la n g u a g e .” U ni t ed Stat es v. A l ber t i ni , 4 7 2 U

. S

. 6 7 5 , 6 8 0 (19 8 5 ) . H o w ev er, “the meani ng of s t atut or yl anguage , pl ai n ornot , depends on c o n te x t,” K i ng v. St

. V

i ncent ’s H

os p. , 5 0 2 U

. S

. 2 1 5 , 2 2 1 (19 9 1 ), and t hus “i s det erm i ned byr efe r ence t o t he l anguage i t s el f, t he s peci fi c cont exti n w hi ch thatl anguage i s us ed, and the br oader17 cont extof the s t atut e as a w hol e. ” R obi ns on v. S h ell O i lC o. , 5 1 9 U .S . 3 3 7 , 3 4 1 (1 9 9 7 ); s e e a l s o Be e c h a m v. Uni t e d

S t a t es , 5 1 1 U .S . 3 6 8 , 3 7 2 (1 9 9 4 ) (“ T h e p lain m e a n in g th a t w e se e k to di s cern i s t he pl ai n m eani ng of t he w hol e s t atut e, notof i s ol at ed sen tenc es.”); Koko szka v. B el f ord , 417 U

. S. 642, 650 ( 1974) (“ W h e n in ter p re tin g a sta tu te, th e c o u rt w ill n o t lo o k m e re lyto a p a rticu lar c lau se in w h ich g e n e ra l w o rd s m a y b e u se d , b u t w ill t ake i n connec t i on w i t h i tt he w hol e s t atut e . . . . ” (i n terna l q u o t a t i o n ma r k s a n d c i t a t i o n o mi t t e d ) )

. I n t h a tl i g h t , t h o u g h we “pr es um e thatC ongr es s expr es s ed i t s l egi s l at i ve i nt entt hr ough t he or di narym eani ng of the w or ds i tcho se t o us e, ” U ni t ed St at es v. Knox , 32 F. 3d 733, 744 ( 3d C i r . 1 9 9 4 ), “[t ] he circu m stan ce s o f . . . p arti cu lar leg isl ati o n m ay p ersu ad e a c o u rt t hatC ongr es s di d noti nt end w or ds of comm on m eani ng t o have t hei rl i t er al eff

ect , ” W at tv. A l as ka , 4 5 1 U .S . 2 5 9 , 2 6 6 (1 9 8 1 ).
B ankoff’ s ar gum enti n s uppor tof hi s i nt erpr et at i on of § 1 1 5 i s s t r a i g h t f

o r wa r d

. He c o n t e n d s t h a t , b e c a us e t h e t e r ms “of fi ci al ” and “em ploy ee” ha ve d i fferentordi narym eanings, C o ng res s could no thav e i ntended t hat § 115 app l yt o thr e a ts ag ains t em p loy ee s “w h o se k il li n g w o u ld b e a crim e u n d er” § 1114 byr efe r r i ng t o t hr eat s agai ns t“off i ci al [s ] w hos e ki l l i ng w o u ld b e a c ri m e u n d e r” § 1 1 1 4 . 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 (a )( 1 )( B ). See al s o W ebs t er ’s Thi r d N

ew I nt ’ lD i ct i onar

y 743 ( 1971) ( “empl oy ee” m eans “one e m pl oy ed byanother [, ] us u[al l y ] i n a p o sitio n b e lo w th e e x e c u tiv e lev e l an d u su [ a lly ] f o r w a g e s” ); i d. at 15 6 6 (“o ff

ici al” m ea n s “a p erso n au tho ri ze d to ac t fo r a governm ent , corpor at i on, [or ] or gani zat ion”)

. T hough B a n k o f f ’s a rg u m e n t is n o t w ith o u t su rf a c e a p p e a l, w e re

jec t it

.T o co m pl et e the def i ni t i onal t r i l ogy , a “U ni t ed St at es 5 j udge” i s “any j udi ci al offi cer of the U ni t ed St at es , and i ncl udes a ju stic e o f

th e S u p re m e C o u rt a n d a U n ited S tate s m a g istra te j udge. ” I

d. § 1 1 5 (c )( 3 ). 18 Sect i on 115 pr ohi bi t s t hr eat s agai ns t four c at egor i es of i ndi vi dual s

— “U ni t ed St at es offi ci al [s ] , ” “U ni t ed St at es j ud ge[s], ” “F ederal l aw enfo rcem ent offi cer[s ] , ” a nd“off i ci al [s] w hose ki l l i ng w oul d be a c r i m e under ” § 1114— buti ncl udes s peci fi c de fi ni t i ons foronl yt he fi r s tt hr ee. “U ni t ed St at es offi ci al ”— a t erm t hatw oul d encompas s a w i de cl as s of per s ons i f cons t rued cons i s t en t w i t h i t s or di narym eani ng— i s defi ned narr ow l yt o i ncl ude onl y“the Pr es i dent , Pr es i d ent
- el ect , V i ce P re s id e n t, V i c e P re s id e n t- e le c t, a M e m b e r o f C o n g re s s , a m ember

- el ectof C o ngr es s , a mem berof the exe cut i ve br anch w ho i s t he head of a depart m ent l i s t ed i n 5 U

. S. C

. § 101, ort he Di r e c t o ro f

t h e Ce n t r a l I n t e l l i g e n c e Ag e n c y . ” 1 8 U. S

. C. § 1 1 5 (c)(4). B y co n tr ast, a “F ed era l law en fo rce m en t of fice r” i s defi ned more b roa d lyt han i t s or di narym eani ng t o i ncl ude “any offi cer , agent , or empl oy ee of t he U ni t ed St at es author i zed by l aw orbya G overnm entagenc yt o engage i n ors uper vi s e the pr event i on, det ect i on, i n v esti gat i on, orpr os ecut i on of any v io la tio n o f

F e d e ra l c ri m in a l la w .” I d. § 1 1 5 (c )( 1 ). 5
I n t hi s c o n t e x t , i ta p p e a r s t o u s t h a tCon g r e s s i n t e n d ed ter m s lik e “ o f

f icia l” a n d “ o f

f ice r” to h a v e a sp e c ial m e a n in g in § 1 1 5 that w as n o t th e sa m e a s the iro rdin ary , d ict ion ary defi ni t i ons . A s not ed, § 115 i t s el f def i nes a fe der al l aw e n f o rc e m e n t “ of

f i cer ”— a t erm B ankoff

c o n t e n d s i s s yn o n ymous19 w i t h “off i ci al ” for purpos es of t he cr os s - r efe r ence t o § 1114— as in c lu d in g f

e d e ra l “ em

ployee[ s]

. . . author i zed t o engage i n or s up e rv i s e th e p r e v e n t i o n , d e t e c t i on, i nves t i gat i on, orpr os ecut i on of anyvi ol at i on of Feder al cr i m i nal l aw . ” Id

. (em p h asis ad d ed ).
N ori s § 115 unus ual i n t hi s r egar d; i ndeed, ot hers ect i ons o f th e C rim in a l C o d e sp e c if ica llyd e f

in e th e te r m “ o f

f icia l” to in c lu d e “ e m p lo y e e s.” F o r e x a m p le, th e f e d e ra l b r ib e rysta tu te defi nes “publ i c off

i ci al ” t o i ncl ude a
M ember of C ongr es s , D el egat e, orR es i dent C om m i s s i oner , ei t her befor e or aft er s uch off i ci al h as qu ali fied , o r an o ff

icer orem

pl oyee orper s on act i ng for or on behal f of t he U ni t ed St at es , orany depart m ent , agenc yorbr anch of G overnm ent t her eof, i ncl udi ng t he D i s t r i ct of C ol um bi a, i n any offi cial funct i on, underorbyauthor i t yof any s uch depa r t m ent , ag en cy , or br anch of G o v ern m en t, o r a juro r. 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 0 1 (a )(1 ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). S im ilarly , the sta tu te p roh i bit i ng t he m urder or m ansl aug hterof f orei gn off

i ci als defi nes a “f

or ei gn offi ci al ” t o i ncl ude

a n yp e rso n o f

a f o r e ig n n a tio n a lityw h o is d u ly n o tified to the U n it ed S tat es a s an o ff icer or em pl oyee of a f

or ei gn governm e n to ri n t ernat i onal or gani za ti on, and w ho i s i n t he U ni t ed St at es on o f fi ci al bu si ness, and anym em ber of h i s fam ily20 w h o se p re se n c e in th e U n ited S tate s is in connec t i on w i t h t he pr esen ce of s uch off

i ceror empl oy ee. 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 1 6 (b )( 3 )( B ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). Fi nal l y , w e bel i ev e i tes peci al l ys i gni fi cantt hat§ 115 defi nes t he fi r s tt hr ee c at egor i es of cove r ed per s ons butpr ovi des no defi ni t i on fort he fourt h cat egory . T hi s s t r ongl ys ugges t s t hat C ongr es s int ended f

or§ 1114 i t s el f t o defi ne thatcat egoryby in c o rp o ra tin g it b yre f e re n c e in to § 1 1 5

. C f

. St enber

g v. C arha rt , 53 0 U

. S

. 91 4, 94 2 (200 0) ( w hen a st atute de fi nes a t erm , a court“must fol l ow t hat defi ni t i on, even i f i t var i es fr om th a t te rm ’s o rd in a ry m e a n in g ” ).
N ot w i t hs t andi ng t hi s s t atut or y cont ext , B ankoff as ks us t o c o mp a r e § 1 1 5 wi t h § 1 1 1 o f Ti t l e 1 8 , wh i c h ma k e s i ta c r i me to “f o rcibly assa u lt [], resist[], o p p o se[ ], im p ed e[ ], inti m idate[ ], or i nt er fer e[] w i t h any per s on des ignat ed in se c tio n 1 1 1 4 o f th is t i t l e w hi l e enga ged i n oron acc ountof the per form ance of o ff ici al du tie s. ” 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 1 1 (a)(1) (em p h asis ad d ed ). B ankoff ar gues t hat , “[h] ad C ongr es s i nt ended [ §] 115 t o cover t he exa cts ame cl as s of vi ct i m s as [§] 1114, i tw oul d have empl oy ed the exa cts ame l anguage w hi ch i tus ed i n” § 111— i

. e. , § 1 1 5 w o u l d r e f

e rt o a n y “

pers on des i gnat ed” i n § 1114 i ns t eadW e not e thatatl eas tone others ect i on o f T it le 18 6 in c o rp o ra te s § 1 1 1 4 u s in g la n g u a g e s im il a r to § 1 1 5

. See 18 U

. S. C

. § 876( c) ( pr ovi d i ng fora t en- y ears t atut or ym axi m um t erm of i m pr i s o n m ent w her e a de fenda ntm ai l s a thr eat eni ng comm uni cat ion to “a U ni t ed St at es j udge, a Feder al l aw enfor cementoffi cer , oran of f i ci alw ho is cove r ed by s ect i on 1114 ” (e m p h asis ad d ed )). 21 of an “ o ffi c ia l w hos e ki l l i ng w oul d be a c r i m e” unde r§ 1114. 6 (A p p ell an t’ s R ep lyB r. at 5.)
W e are no t persuaded

. T he di fferent l ang uag e use d to i ncorpor at e § 1114 i s r eadi ly ex pl ai ned by§ 111’ s uni que s t atut or y hi s t or y . B ot h § 111 and § 1114 or i gi nat e fr om a 1934 A ct “[t ] o pr ovi de puni s hm ent for ki l l i ng or as s aul t i ng [f] eder al o ff icers.” P u b

. L

. N o . 7 3 -2 3 0 , 4 8 S tat
. 7 8 0 (19 3 4 ). Sect i on 1114 s t ems fr om § 1 of t he 1934 A ct ; § 111 fl ow s fr om § 2, w hi ch “f

orbade f or ci bl e r es i s t ance ori nt er fer ence w i t h, or as s aul tupon, ” “a nyper s on des i gnat ed i n s ect i on 1 her eof. ” 48 S tat. 7 8 0 , 7 8 1 ; se e U

n itedS ta tes v . F e o la , 420 U

. S. 671, 679 (1975 ). S ect i on 11 1 ass um ed i t s curr ent form i n 194 8 w h e n it w as r e- codi fi ed as a s epar at e s ect i on of Ti t l e 18, 62 S t at
. 688 (1 9 4 8 ); se e Fe o la , 420 U

. S. at678 n. 13, and i n r e- codi fy i ng t hat s ect i on i tappea r s t hatC ongr es s s im p ly r et ai ned the or i gi nal lan g u a g e u se d in th e 1 9 3 4 A c t ( i

. e. , a “ p e rs o n d e s ig n a te d ” ).
In a n ye v e n t, th a t C o n g re ss u se d d if f e re n t la n g u a g e to in c o rp o ra te § 1 1 1 4 in d if f e re n t sta tu tes th a t w e re c o d if ied n e a rly f o u r d e c a d e s a p a r t

— § 1 1 1 i n 1 9 4 8 , a n d § 1 1 5 i n 1 9 8 4 , Pu b

. L.T hough notr ai s ed byt he part i es , w e not e t hatanother 7 s ect i on of Ti t l e 18, § 119, cont ai ns inco rpor at i ng l anguage sim il ar t o § 1 1 1

. See 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 9 (a ), (b )(2 )(A ) (m a k in g it a cr i m e i n cert ai n ci r cumst ance s t o “make[] r es t r i ct ed per s onal i nfor m at i on abouta cove r ed per s on . . . publ i cl yavai l abl e, ” and defi ni ng a “c over ed per s on” t o inc l ude “a n i ndi vi dual des ignat ed in secti o n 1 1 1 4 ” of T it le 1 8 (em p h as is a d d ed )). S e c tio n 1 1 9 w a s e n a c ted in 2 0 0 8 , P u b . L . N o . 1 1 0 -1 7 7 , 1 2 1 S tat. 2 5 3 6 (2 0 0 8 ), m o re th a n tw o d e c a d e s a f ter § 1 1 5 w a s e n a c ted in 1984. I n anyevent , t her e i s no i ndi cat i on fr om ei t hert he t extor l egisl at i ve hi s t or yof § 119 thati t s r efe r ence t o an “i ndi vi dual des i gnat ed” i n § 1114 w as chos en t o di s t i ngui s h i t s s cope f r om th a t o f § 1 1 5

. 22 N o. 98- 4 7 3 , 9 8 St at
. 2140 ( 1984)

— does not , s t andi ng al one, d e m o n stra te th a t itu se d th e ter m “ o f f icia l” (a s o p p o se d to “per s on”) i n § 115 w i t h t he i nt ent i on of l i m i t i ng i t s s cope. A nd 7 th o u g h C o n g re ss c o u ld h a v e u se d a ter m o th e r th a n “ o f f icia l” to a c h i eve the sam e res ult , i t s cho i ce m akes s ense w hen § 115 is vi ew ed i n cont ext , gi ven both i t s t i t l e (“ [i ] nfl uenci ng, i m pedi ng, o r re talia tin g a g a in st a F e d e ra l o ffi c ia l by t hr eat eni ng ori nj ur i ng a fa m i l ym ember ”) and the ki nds of thr eat s t o w h ic h i tappl i es ( e. g. , t hos e made t o r et al i at e agai ns t s uch an off i ci al “on ac count of the per for m ance of of f i ci aldut i es ”)

. 18 U

. S. C

. § 115 (e m p h a s e s a d d e d ).T hes e “fe der al offi cer s ” w er e: “anyU ni t ed St at es m ar s hal 8 ordeputyU ni t ed St at es m ar s hal , s peci al agentof the D i vi s i on of I n v e s t i g a t i o n o f

t h e Dep a r t me n to f

J u s t i c e , p o s t
- o f

f i ce i ns pect or , Secr etSer vi ce ope r at i ve, anyoffi cerorenl i s t ed man of the C oas t G uar d, anyempl oy ee of anyU ni t ed St at es penal or corr ect i onal i ns t i tut i on, anyoffi cerof the cus t om s orof the i nt ernal r evenue , [or ] anyi m m i gr ant ins pect orof any i m m i gr at i on patr ol i ns pect or . ” 48 St at
. 780. 23 2. T he Textof § 1114
T h is i nt erpr et at i on of § 115 i s confi r m ed byan exami nat i on of the ve rsi o n o f § 1114 thatw as i n for ce w hen § 115 w as enac t ed i n 1984. A s not ed, § 1114 or igina te s fr om § 1 o f th e 1 9 3 4 A c t, an d , in its o rig in a l f o rm , m a d e it a c rim e to ki l l s even t ypes of “feder al offi cer s ” w hi l e t hey w er e “e ngaged i n t he per for m ance of [thei r ] offi ci al dut i es , oron acc ountof the per for m ance of [thei r ] offi ci al dut i es . ” T hats ect i o n w as 8 s epar at el y co d if

i ed as 18 U

. S. C

. § 1114 i n 1948, 62 St at
. 756 (1 9 4 8 ), an d in th e d e c a d e s th a t f o llo w e d C o n g re ss “ g re a tly expande d” the ca t egor i es of per s ons pr ot ect ed byt hatpr ovi s i on. Fe o la , 4 2 0 U

. S. at679 n. 15. B y1984 ( w hen § 115 w as enac t ed) , § 1114 appl i ed t o any “off i cerorempl oy ee” of, among m any fede r al agenc i es and depar t m ent s , t he Secr etSer vi ce, t he D rug E nfor cementA dm i ni str ati o n , the V et er ans ’ A dm i ni s tr at i on ( now t he D epart m entof V eter ans A ffa i r s ) , t he D epart m entof A gr i cul tur e, t he F eder al D epos i t or yI ns ur ance C orpor at i on, t he Feder al C om m u n ic at i ons C om m i s s i on, and the N at i onalI n ful l , t he ver s i on of 18 U

. S. C

. § 1114 i n for ce w hen § 115 9 w as enacted provided as foll ow s: W hoeverki l l s orat t empt s t o ki l l any j udge of the U ni t ed St at es , anyU ni t ed St at es A t t or ney , any A s s i s t ant U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney , or any U ni t ed St at es m ar s hal or d ep ut ym ar s hal orper s on e m p lo y e d to a ss ist su c h m a rsh a l o r d e p u ty m ar s hal , any offi cer or empl oy ee of t h e F eder al B ur eau of

I nves t i gat i on of th e D epart m entof J us t i ce, anyoffi cerorempl oy ee of t he Pos t al Ser vi ce, anyoffi cerorempl oy ee of t he [S] ecr et [S] er vi ce or of t he D r ug E nfor cement A dm i ni s t r at i on, anyoffi cerorm emberof the U ni t ed St at es C api t ol Pol i ce, an ym emberof the C o ast G u ard , an yem p loy ee o f th e C o ast G u ard as s i gned t o per for m i nves t i gat i v e, i ns pect i on or l aw enfor cementfunct i ons , anyoffi ceror empl oy ee of

anyU ni t ed St at es penal or corr ect i onal i ns t i tut i on, anyoffi cer , emp loy ee or agentof the cus t om s or of the i nt ernal r evenue or a n yp e rso n a ss istin g h im in th e e x e c u tio n o f h is dut i es , anyi m m i gr at i on offi cer , anyofficer or empl oy ee of

t he D epart m entof A gr i cul tur e orof t he D epart m entof th e I nt er i ordes i gnat ed byt he Secr et aryof the I nt er i ort o enfor ce any A ctof C ongr es s fort he pr ot ecti on, pr es ervat i on, or r es t or at i on of game and ot herw i l d bi r ds and ani m al s , anyempl oy ee of the D epart m entof 24 A e ro n a u tics a n d S p a c e A d m in istra tio n . A n d in a d d iti o n to 9A gr i cul tur e des i gnat ed byt h e S ecr et aryof A gr i cul tur e t o carr y out any l aw or r egul at i on, or t o per for m anyfunct i on i n connec t ion w ith any Feder al orSt at e pr ogr am or a nypr ogr am of Puer t o R i co, G uam, t he V i r gi n Isl ands of the U ni t ed St at es , or t he D i s t r i ctof C ol um bi a, fort he contr ol orer adica ti on orpr event i on of the i ntr od ucti on or di ssem i nati on of ani m al dis eases, an yo ff icer o r em p loy ee o f th e N ati o n al P ark Ser vi ce, an yci vi l i an off i ci al orempl oy ee of

t he A r m yC orps of Engi neer s as s i gned t o per fo rm inv es ti g ati o n s, insp ec ti o n s, law o r reg u lat o ry e n f o rc e m e n t f

u n c tio n s, o r f

ield -le v e l r e a l es tate funct i ons , any offi cer or empl oy ee of, oras s i gned t o dut yi n, t he fi el d s ervi ce of t he B ur eau of

L and M anage m ent , or a nyoffi cerorempl oy ee of t he I ndi an fi el d s er vi ce of t he U ni t ed St at es , orany offi cerorempl oy ee of

the N at i onal A er onaut ic s and S pace A dm i ni s t r at i on di r ect ed t o guar d and pr ot ectpr op ertyof the U ni t ed St at es undert he admi ni s t r at i on and contr ol of the N at i onal A er onaut ics and Space A dm i ni s t r at i on, any s ecur i t yoffi cerof the D epart m ent of S t at e ort he For ei gn Ser vi ce, or anyoffi cerorempl oy ee of t he D epart m ent o f H eal t h, E ducat i on, and W el far e, t he C ons um erPr oductSafetyC om m i s s i on, I nt er s t at e C om m er ce Commi s s i on, t he D epart m entof C om m er ce, ort he D ep artmentof L abororo f the D epart m entof the I nt er i ororof th e D e p a rtm e n t o f

A g r ic u ltu re a ss ig n e d to 25pe r f o r m i n v e s t i g a t i ve, i ns pect i on, or l aw enfor cementfunct i ons , oranyoffi cerore mpl oy ee of the Feder al C om m un i cat i ons C om m i s s i on per for m i ng i nves t i gat i ve, i ns pect i on, orl aw enfor cementfunct i ons , o ra n yoffi cerorempl oy ee o f th e V e ter a n s’ A d m in istra tio n a ss ig n e d to pe r f o r m i n v e s t i g a t i v e o rl a w en f o r c e me nt funct i o n s, oranyU ni t ed St at es pr obat i on or pr etr ial s er vi ces offi cer , oranyU ni t ed St at es m agi s t r at e, oranyoffi cerorem p loy ee of any depart m ent or agenc y w i t hi n the Int el l i gence C om m uni t y( as defi ned i n Sect i on 3. 4( F) of E xecut i ve O r der12333, D ece m ber 8 , 1981, or s ucce s s oror der s ) n otal r eadycover ed undert he term s o f th is secti o n , [] a n yatt o rne y , li q u id a tor, exami ner , cl ai m agent , orot her e m pl oy ee of t he Federal D epos i t or yI ns ur ance C orpor at i on, t he Feder al Savi ngs and Loan I ns ur ance C orpor at i on, t he C om pt r ol l erof the C ur r ency , t he Feder al H o m e L o an B an k B o ard , the B o ard o f G o v ern o rs of t h e Fe d e r a l Re s e r v e Sy s t e m, a n yFe d e r al R es erve bank, ort he N at i onal C r edi tU n ion A dm i ni s t r at i on, oranyot heroff i cer , agenc y , or empl oy ee of

t he U nit ed St at es des i gnat ed for cover age unde rt hi s s ect i on i n r egul at i ons i s s ued byt he A t t or ney G ener al engage d i n oron acc ount of the per for m ance of hi s offi ci al dut i es , orany offi cerorempl oy ee of the U ni t ed St at es orany agenc y t her eo f d e s i g n a t e d t o col l ector c o m p ro m ise a F e d e ra l cla im in a c c o rd a n c e w ith

26s ect i ons 3711 and 3716–3718 of t i t l e 31 orot her s t atut or yauthor i t y [, ] s hal l be punis hed as p ro v id e d u n d e r se c tio n s 1 1 1 1 a n d 1 1 1 2 o f th is t i t l e, exce pt that anys uch per s on w ho i s found gui l t yo f a t t e mpt e d mur d e rs h a l l b e i mpr i s oned for no tm ore t han t w entyy ears . 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 1 1 4 (19 8 4 ). In a d d itio n to th e s e “ o f f ic e rs ,” “ e m p lo y e e s ,” “ m e m b e rs ,” 10 and “a gent s , ” the 1984 ver s i on of § 1114 al s o appl i ed t o “any ci vi l i an o ffi c ia l

. . . o f

t h e Ar myCo rp s o f

En g i n e e r s . ” 1 8 U. S

. C. § 1114 ( 1984) ( emphasi s added)

. In that l i ght , acc ept i ng B ankoff’ s ar gum ent that§ 115 does noti ncorpor at e ful l yt he persons l i st ed in § 11 14 w ou l d lead t o an absurd resul t
. B ecause w e pr es um e thatC ongr es s w as aw ar e of t he l anguage of § 1114 w hen i tenac t ed § 115, s ee, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. Moham m ed , 27 F

. 3d 81 5, 82 1 (2d C i r. 19 94 )— and t hu s p res um e t hat C on gress k n e w t h a t§ 1 1 1 4 r e f

e r r e d t o o n l y one typ e o f “ o f f icia l”— it w oul d fol l ow t hat§ 115 ’ s pr ohi bi t i on of thr eat s agai ns tan
“ o ffi c ia l w hos e ki l l i ng w oul d be a c r i m e under ” § 1114 w as l i mi t e d t o t h r e a t s a g a i n s t“ c i v i l i a n o f f i c i a l [ s ]

. . . o f

t h e Ar my C orps of E ng i neers. ” T h a t c o uld not have b een C on gress ’ in ten t. 27 “ o f f i cer[s] or em ploy ee[s]” of such ag encies and dep artm ents , § 1 1 1 4 a l s o c o v e r e d , a m o n g o t h e r s , a n y “ a g e n t o f t h e c u s t o ms o r o f th e in te rn a l re v e n u e ,” a n y “ m em ber of the U ni t ed St at es C a p ito l P o lic e ,” a n d a n y “ m em ber of the C oas tG uar d. ” 18 10 U

. S. C

. § 1114 ( 1984) ( em phas i s added)

. C ongr es s di d not s h o r t e n t h i s l i s tu n t i l 1 9 9 6

— t wel v e y e a r s a f t e ri tenac t ed28 § 115— w hen i tamended § 1114 t o r efe r s i m pl y t o “anyoffi cer orempl oy ee of

t he U ni t ed St at es orof anyagenc y i n anybr anch o f th e U n it ed S tat es G o v ern m en t. ” 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 1 1 4 (19 9 6 ). ( O ne s us pect s t hatt he queue of r eques t s foraddi t i onal in c lu s io n s h a d g ro w n to o lo n g .)
T hi s statut or ycont extconfi r m s ourconcl us i on t hat C o n g re ss u se d “ o f

f icia l” in § 1 1 5 a s a g e n e ra l term to in c o r p o ra te b yre f

e re n c e a ll th e “ o f

f ic e rs ,” “ e m p lo y e e s ,” “mem ber s , ” and “ agent s ” of the fe der al depart m ent s and agenc i es l i s t ed i n § 111 4

. B ydoi ng s o, C ongr es s avoi ded the n e e d to re s ta te th a t le n g th ylis t in § 1 1 5 its e lf

. See, e. g. , H a ss e tt v. W el ch , 3 0 3 U .S . 3 0 3 , 3 1 4 (1 9 3 8 ) (“ W h e re o n e sta tu te a d o p ts t he par t i cul ar pr ovi s i ons of anotherbya s peci fi c and de s cr i pt i ve r efe r ence . . . , t he ef

fec ti s t he s ame as t hough t he s t atut e or pr ovi s i ons ado pt ed had be en i ncorpor at ed bodi l yi nt o t he adopt i ng s t atute. ” ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on o m itt e d )); see al

so N or m an J

. Si nger& J

. D

. Sham bi e Si nger , 2B Suther l and St at ut es and St at ut or y C ons tr uct i on § 51: 8 ( “W hen [a ] refe ren ce is m ad e to a sp ec ifi c se cti o n o f [ a] statute, th at pa rt of the s t atut e i s appl i ed as t hough w r i t t en i nt o t he r efe r ence s t atut e. ”)

. M or eover , w e thi nk i ti m pl aus i bl e thatC ongr es s us ed th e ter m “ o f

f icia l” a s a lim itatio n o n th e p e rso n s e n u m e ra ted in § 1114, y etdecl i ned t o defi ne t hatt erm orpr ovi de any in d ica tio n a s to h o w c o u rts (o r, p re su m a b ly , jur ies ) w e re to d eterm ine w h ich o f th e e n u m era ted “ em p loy ee s, ” “ o ff icers ,” “me m b ers , ” and “ agent s ” l i s t ed i n § 1114 al s o qual i fyasT hough emp loy ees of the SSA w er e noti ncl uded among 11 t he fe der al empl oy ees l i s t ed i n t he 1984 ver s i on of § 1114, t hat v e rsio n o f

th e sta tu te a u th o riz e d th e A tto r n e yG e n e ra l to des i gnat e “a ny ot her offi cerorempl oy ee of t he U ni t ed St at es or a n ya g e n c yt h e r e o f

. . . f o r c o v e r a g e u n d e r ” § 1 1 1 4

. 1 8 U. S

. C. § 1114 ( 1984)

. A nd befor e the 1996 amendm entt o § 1114, t he A t t or neyG ener al had des i gnat ed “[ e] m pl oy ees of the Soci al S ecuri t yA dm i ni s tr a t i on a s s i gn e d t o Adm i ni s tr a t i on fi e l d o ffi ces, hear i ng offi ces and fi el d as sess m entoffi ces ” as empl oy ees co v ere d u n d er § 1 1 1 4

. 2 8 C

. F

. R

. § 6 4

. 2 (x) (1 9 9 2 ). A ccor di ngl y , w e n ee d notdet erm i ne i n t hi s cas e w hether C ongr es s i nt ended f

or§ 115 t o i ncorpor at e t he 1996 amendm ent t o § 1 1 1 4 , as empl oy ees of the SSA w er e cove r ed eve n under th e p ri o r v e rs i o n o f

th a t s ta tu te
. See No r ma n J

. S i n g e r& J

. D. S h a mb i e S i n g e r , 2 B Su therlan d St atut es an dS tat utory C ons tr uct i on § 51: 8 ( not i ng t he gene r al rul e t hat “[a ] s t atut e of s peci fi c refe r ence i ncorpor at es t he pr ovi s i ons r efe r r ed t o fr om t he s t atut e as of the t i m e of ad o p ti on w i t houts ubs equent amendm en ts, unl es s t he l egi s l atur e has expr es s l yorbys t r ong i m pl i cat i on s how n i t s i nt ent i on t o i ncorpor at e s ub s equent a m e n d m e n ts w ith th e sta tu te” ); se e a lso U n itedS ta tes v . Sm ith , 2 9 6 F .3 d 3 4 4 , 3 4 7 n .1 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ) (n o tin g th a t § 1 1 1 4 “ in its curr entfor m pr ovi des even br oader cover age” t han the pr e- 1996 v e rs io n ). 29 “ o f f ic ia ls .” 11
I n s um , w e conc l ude that w h en § 115’ s r efe r ence t o an “off i ci al w hos e ki l l i ng w oul d be a c r i m e under ” § 1114 i s r ead in co n text, it s m ea n ing is p lai n ; “o ff ici al” i s n o t u sed as a termB ankoff ar gues t h at o u r c o n struct i on of the phr as e “a n 12 o ff ici al w h o se k ill ing w o u ld b e a crim e” u n d er § 1 1 1 4 ren d ers s uper fl uous t h e firs tt hr ee c at egor i es of per s ons cover ed by § 115 ( “U ni t ed St at es offi ci al [s ] , ” “U ni t ed St at es j udge[s ] , ” and “F ed era l l aw en fo rce m en t of fice r[s]”). (A p p ell an t’ s R ep lyB r. at8. ) H e appar ent l y m eans t hat , i f the fourt h cat egoryof § 115 c o v e rs e v e ry“ o f

f ice r” o r “ e m p lo y e e ” o f

th e f e d e ra l g o v e rn m e n t, th e re w o u ld b e n o p u rp o s e f o r th e f ir s t th re e c a te g o ri e s . See U ni t ed St at es v. C ooper , 3 9 6 F

. 3 d 3 0 8 , 3 1 2 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ) (“It i s a w el l kn ow n can on of st atutorycon struct i on that courts s houl d cons t rue s t atut or y l anguage t o avoi d i nt erpr et at i ons t hat w oul d r enderanyphr as e s uper fl uous . ”) T hough w e need notcons ul tt he ca nons of cons t ruct i on w h e re , a s h e re , th e m e a n in g o f s ta tu to ry la n g u a g e is c le a r, s ee U ni t ed St at es v. Jones , 4 7 1 F .3 d 4 7 8 , 4 8 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ), w e in anyeventr ej ect B ankoff’ s ar gum ent
. W hen § 115 w as enac t ed i n 1984, t he ver s i on of § 1114 t hen i n for ce di d not appl yt o any
“ o f f ice r o r e m p lo y e e o f

th e U n ited S tate s,” b u t o n lyto c e rta in “off i cer s , ” “e m pl oy ees , ” “ a g e nt s , ” and “ m ember s ” empl oy ed by v ariou s (an d n u m ero u s) s peci f i c f e d e ra l ag e n c ies . In a n ye v e n t, t hatt her e w as s om e over l ap betw een t he i ndi vi dual s cover ed by § 1114 an d t he fi r s tt hr ee c at egor i es of per s ons pr ot ect ed by § 115— forexampl e, t he 1984 ver s i o n of § 1114 al r eady pr ot ect ed “a nyj udge of the U ni t ed St at es ” or“U n it ed St at es m agi s t r at e, ” t hus r ender i ng § 115’ s enumer at i on of a “U n i t ed St a t e s j u d g e ” u n n e c e s s a r y

— d o e s n o tme a n t h a tt h e f i r s tt h r ee cat egor i es ar e r ender ed s uper fl uous by§ 115’ s i ncorpor at i on of 30 of l i m i t at i on, but as a gene r al t erm t hati ncorpor at es byr efe r ence al l t he i ndi vi dual s pr ot ect ed under§ 1114, bot h “off i cer [s ] and e m p lo y e e [ s ].” 12§ 1 1 1 4

. C f. U n ited S ta tes v . N

a fta lin , 441 U

. S. 768, 778 ( 1979) ( “ ‘ [ t ] h e f a c t t h a t t h e r e ma y we l l b e s o me o v e r l a p ’ ” b e t we e n t wo statu tes “‘is n eit h er un u su al no r un fo rtu n ate’”) ( quot i ng SE Cv. N at ’ lSec. , I

nc. , 3 9 3 U .S . 4 5 3 , 4 6 8 (1 9 6 9 ) (a ltera tio n in o ri g in a l) ). Fina ll y , w e not e thatB ankoff’ s pr opos ed i nt erpr et at i on i t sel f viol at es the an t i -s up erfl uo usness cano n. H ad C on gress in tende d, as B ank off

argues, t o li m i t§ 1 15 ’s scope to o n ly “off i cer s ” pr ot ect ed by § 1114, i t pr es um abl y w oul d have us ed t h e t e r m “ o f

f i c e r ” i n s t e a d o f

“ o f f i c i a l ” i n § 1 1 5

. As we “ a s s u me t hatC ongr es s us ed tw o t erm s beca us e i t i nt ended eac h t o have a part i cul ar , non- s uper fl uous m eani ng, ” B ai l ey v. U ni t ed Stat es , 5 1 6 U

. S

. 1 3 7 , 1 4 6 (19 9 5 ), w e c an n o t acc ep t B an k o ff ’s c o n ten tio n th a t C o n g r e ss u se d th e ter m “ o f f icia l” in § 1 1 5 to l i m i ti t s s c o p e t o “ o f

f i c e r s ” wh o s e k i l l i n g wo u l d b e a c r i me under§ 1114. 31

3

. T h e L eg isl ati v e H ist o ry E ven w er e w e t o l ay asid e the pl ai n l anguage of § 115 a n d c o n su lt i ts le g isla tiv e h is to r y a s a c o u rse m a rk e r, itw o u ld n o t ai d B a n k o f

f

. C f

. A l ber t i ni , 472 U

. S. at680. H e ar gues t hat t he l egi s l at i ve hi s t or y“‘ i ndi cat es t hat C ongr es s w as conce r ned w i t h h i gh po l i cy m aking, j ud i ci al and l aw enfo rcem ent offi cers , butt hatt hatl egi s l at i ve conc ern d id n o t ext end t o fede r al empl oy ees i n gener al

. ’ ” ( A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at17–18 ( qu o ti ng Fent on , 1 0 F

. S u p p . 2 d at 5 0 5 ). ) H e reli es o n the S en ate R ep o rt t hat accom pan i es § 11 5, w hich beg i ns: [Sect i on 115] i s a new pr ovi s i on d e sig n e d toA s i nit i al l y enacted, § 115 app l i ed o nlyt o thr eat s agai nst 13 t h e f a mi l y me mbe r s o f f

e d e r a l o f f i c i a l s . I n 1 9 8 6 , § 115 w as a m e n d e d to “ e x te n d [ ] p ro te c tio n to
. . . th e o f f ic ia ls th e m s e lv e s .” H . R e p . N o . 9 9 -7 9 7 , a t 1 4 (1 9 8 6 ). 32 pr ot ect the cl os e r elat i ves of

cer t ai n high l eve l o ffi c ia ls , such as t he P res i den t , V i ce-Presi den t, m ember s o f C ongr es s , cabi netoffi cer s , and fede r al j udges , as w el l as fede r al l aw enfor cement o f f ic e rs . . . . T he C om m i t t ee be l i eves t hats er i ous cr i m es agai ns tfa m il ym ember s of hi gh l evel fede r al offi ci al s , fede r al j udges , and fe dera l l aw enfor cement offi cer s , w hi ch ar e comm i t t ed b e c a u se o f

th e ir re lativ e s’ jo b s a r e , g e n e ra lly s peaki ng, pr oper m at t er s of fede r al co ncern. C l ear l yi ti s a pr operfede r al funct i on to r es pond t o terror i st s and o t her cr i m i nals w h o w o u ld se e k to i nf l uence the m aki ng of

f eder alpol i ci es and i nt er f ere w i th the adm i nis tr at i on of j us t i ce by a ttac k in g c lo se re lativ e s o f th o se e n tr u s ted w ith th e s e ta s k s . S

. R ep . N o . 9 8 -22 5 , at 26 3

– 6 4 (19 8 3 ) (em p h ase s ad d ed ).
T h is a rg u m e n t f

a lls sh o rt. P r o tec tin g th e f a m ily m emb e r s o f s u c h “ h i g h p o l i c yma k i n g ” o f f i c i a l s w as 13 un do ub t edlyan im po rt ant ( and probab ly t he p ri m ary ) purpose33 of the st at ut e. H ow ever , w e dec l i ne t o dr aw fr om t hi s t he n e g a tiv e in f

e re n c e t h a t B a n k o f

f u rg e s , i

. e. , t hat because C ongr es s w as pr i m ar i l y conce r ned w i t h pr ot ect i ng hi gh- r anki ng pol i cym aker s , i tm us tnothave i nt ended f or§ 115 t o pr ot ect m er e “empl oy ees . ” See, e. g. , U n ited S ta tes v . T

u rk e tte , 45 2 U. S. 5 7 6 , 5 9 1 (1 9 8 1 ) (“ th a t th e leg isla tiv e h isto ryf o r c e f u lly supp ort s” a “m aj or purpo se” of the st atute, bu tdo es not address t he s t atut e’ s s cope r egar di ng t he i s s ue athand, does notcompel t he “ne gat i ve i nfer ence ” t hatt he s t atut e does notal s o have other p u rp o s e s (a n d th u s s c o p e s ))

. M o reo v er, th is ex ce rpt fro m the C o n fe ren ce R ep o rt a p p e a rs to a d d re ss o n ly th e f irst th re e c a teg o rie s o f

in d iv id u a ls pr ot ected by§ 115: “U ni t ed St at es offi ci al s , ” “U ni t ed St at es j udges , ” and “ Feder al l aw enfor cementoffi cer s . ” A l at er s t at ement i n t he C onfer ence R epor t sp ec i fi cal l yaddr es s es t he f o u rth c a teg o ryo f

p e rso n s c o v e re d b y§ 1 1 5 : I t s houl d be not ed t hat t he new s ect i on [§ 115] cover s at t acks on fam i l ym ember s of al lthe p e rs o n s l is t ed in 18 U

. S. C

. 1114 as w el l as on fa m i l ym ember s o f o ther law en fo rce m en t of fice rs n o t there li sted

. Inc lud ed in th is lat ter c a tego ry w oul d be, forexampl e, t he I ns pect or s G ener al a n d th e ir s ta

ffs , and D epart m ent of J us t i ce Str i ke F o rc e a tto rn e y s . S. R ep. N o. 98- 225, at264 ( 198 3 ) (e m phas es added)

. E ven as s um i ng t hat t he confe r ence r epor t ’ s us e of “ per s ons ” i ns t eadW e a lso re je c t B a n k o f

f ’s c o n ten tio n th a t w e sh o u ld 14 p resu m e tha t C o n g ress d id n o t i n tend to ex tend § 1 1 5 ’s pr ot ect i on t o “mer e empl oy ees ” i n l i ghtof t h e p ri nci pl e that cour t s “s houl d noti nt erpr eta s t atut e i n a mannert hat s i gni fi cant l yal t er s t he fede r al

- s t at e bal ance unl es s C ongr es s has cl ear l yi ndi cat ed thati ti nt ended t o do s o. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Zw i ck , 1 9 9 F .3 d 6 7 2 , 6 8 6 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ), ab ro g a ted on other gr ounds by Sabr i v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 541 U

. S. 600 ( 2004)

. Sect i on 115 i s nota “ge ner al th rea t” s t atut e. E ven underour cons t ruct ion o f tha ts t atut e, i tpr ot ect s onl yempl oy ees of the f eder algover nm ent , and eve n t hen on ly w h en a thr eati s m ade i n connec t i on w i t h ( ori n r et al i at i on agai ns t ) t he per form ance of s uch a pe r s on’ s “off

i ci al dut i es . ” G i ven thatC ongr es s has m ade ita c ri m e to k il l or att em p t t o k il l su ch ind ividu als (i n § 1 1 1 4 ), w e s ee no “s i gni fi cant [] al t er [at i on i n] t he fe der al

- s t at e bal ance ” t hat r esul t s fr om i nterpret i ng § 11 5 as ap ply i ng t o thr eat s agai nst th e m . Zw i ck , 199 F. 3d at686.34 of “of fi ci al s ” w as a “s t r ay choi ce of w or ds , ” Fent on , 10 F. Supp. 2d at505, i t s r efe r ence t o “ a ll th e p e rso ns l is t ed ” i n § 1114 c o m p o rts w ith o u r c o n c lu sio n th a t C o n g re ss in ten d e d § 1 1 5 to i ncorpor at e byr efe r ence al l t he i ndi vi dual s l i s t ed i n § 1114 ( and thu s av o id restati n g that li st i n § 1 1 5 it self). 14
I n s um , even w er e w e r equi r ed t o cons ul tl egi slat i ve hi s t or yfor§ 115, i ti s cons i s t entw it h ourconcl us i on t hat C ongr es s di d not us e “of fi ci al ” as a l i m i t at i on on t he ca t egor i es of i ndi vi dual s pr ot ect ed by§ 1114.

* * * * *35 W e hol d t hat§ 115 appl i es t o al l per s ons , be they “off i cer [s ] ” or“empl oy ee[ s ] , ” “w hos e ki l l i ng w oul d be a c r i m e” u n d e r § 1 1 1 4

. W e th u s co n c lu d e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in ru lin g th a t a n in d iv id u a l d o e s n o t q u a lify a s an “ o f f icia l” w ith in t he meani ng of § 115 unl es s he ors he i s “authori ze d to make deci s i ons on behal f of the governm ent
. ” Thi s di s put e overt he corr ecti nt erpr et at i on of § 115 i s t he s ol e basi s on w hi ch B ankoff chal l enges t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s deni al of a j udgm entof ac qui t t al o n C o u n t T w o ( t h e t h r e a t s m a d e a g a i n s tT o n i k )

. A c c o r d i n g l y, w e affi r m t he C our t ’ s deni al of a j udgm entof ac qui t t al on t hat C ount , as w e have n o di s put e thatT oni k qual i fi es as an e m p lo y e e w h o s e k illin g w o u ld b e a c ri m e u n d e r § 1 1 1 4

. L i ke T on i k, i ti s und i sputed t hat R ob i nson qu al i fi es as a fede r al “employ ee” w hos e ki l l i ng w oul d be a c r i m e under § 1 1 1 4 . A c c o rd in g ly , w e c o n c lu d e th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in g ran ti n g a j u d g m en t o f ac q u ittal o n C o u n t T h re e . H o w ev er, Ba n k o f f s o u g h ta j u d g me n to f

a c q u i t t a l o n t h a t Co u n to n t wo addi t i onal gr ounds

— t hat t he evi dence w as i ns uffi ci entt o pr ove t h a t h e ( 1 ) ma d e a “ t ru e t h r e a t ” a g a i n s t Rob i n s o n , o r ( 2) act ed w ith th e sp e c if

ic in ten t to im p e d e , intim id a te, o r in ter f e re w ith R obi ns on w hi l e s he w as engage d i n t he per for m ance o f her “off i ci al dut i es , ” ort o r et al i at e aga i ns ther “on accountof the p er for m ance of h[e r ] offi ci al dut i es . ” 18 U

. S. C

. § 115( a) ( 1). T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notr eac h t hos e ar gum en ts , and nei t her B ankoff nor t he G overnm ent addr es s es t hem i n eac h’ s br i efi ng. W e dec l i ne t o cons i dert hem i n t h e firs ti ns t ance , and thus re m a n d f o r t h e D is tr ic t C o u rt to d o s o . C f

. G ov’ tof

the V. I

. v. C h a rle sw e ll , 2 4 F .3 d 5 7 1 , 5 7 7 n .4 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ).36 B. S i x t h Ame n d me n tCl a i m B a n k o f f a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt v io late d h is S ix th A m endment ri g h tt o r epr es enthi m s el f w hen the C our tdeni ed hi s r eques t s t o ( 1) gi ve the openi ng s t at ementfort he def ens e, and (2) cross-exam i ne the G ov ernm ent’ s fi rs tw i t ness ( Sphabm i xy )

. T he G overnm entar gues th at ther e w as no cons t i tut i onal depr i vat i on beca us e B ankoff ’s r eques tw as unt i m el y , havi ng been m ade aft er t r i al began ( and af t erB ankoff had al r eadyw i t hdr aw n hi s r eques tt o pr ocee d pr o s e m e r e d a ys b ef o re tri al).
T h e S ix th A m e n d m e n t g u a ra n tee s cr im in a l d e f e n d a n ts th e ri g h t to re p re s e n t th e m s e lv e s a t tr ia l. Fa re tta v . C a lif o rn ia , 422 U

. S. 806, 819–20 ( 1975)

. T he r i ghtof s el f- r epr es ent at i on and the r i ghtt o couns el ar e “tw o fac es of the s ame coi n, i n t hat t he w ai ver of one r i ght cons t i tut es a corr el at i ve as s er t i on of the ot h er.” U

ni t ed Stat es v. C onder , 4 2 3 F

. 2 d 9 0 4 , 9 0 8 (6th C ir

. 1 9 7 0 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s and ci t at i on o m itted). H o w ev er, beca us e cr i m i nal defe ndant s w i l l l i kel y far e bet t er w i th the as s i s t ance of counse l t han w i t hout , a def endantw i l l be perm i t t ed t o r e p r e s e n th i m s e l f o n l y w h e n h e “ k n o w i n g l y a n d i n t e l l i g e n t l y” re lin q u is h e s h is ri g h t to c o u n s e l. Fa re tta , 4 22 U

. S. at835 (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ).
W e have es t abl i s hed t hr ee r equi r ement s t hat m us t be met befor e a de fenda ntm aybe al l ow ed t o pr ocee d pro se : ( 1) he m us t“as s er thi s des i r e t o pr ocee d p r o s e clear l yand unequi vocal l y ”; ( 2) t he court m us t“i nqui r e thor oughl yt o s at i s fy37 i t s el f t hat ” the r eques ti s know i ng and i nt el l i gent ; and ( 3) t he cour tm us t“as s ur e i t s el f thatt he def endanti s compet entt o s t and t r i al

. ” P epp ers , 302 F. 3d at132 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i ons om i t t ed)

. O urr evi ew o v er a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s fi ndi ngs re g a rd in g t h e s e re q u ir e m e n ts is p le n a ry. See U ni t ed Stat es v. G oldberg , 6 7 F

. 3 d 1 0 9 2 , 1 0 9 7 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 5 ).
W e hav e previ ou sl y st at ed that “t he ti m i ng of the request i s onl y o n e f

a c t o r t h a t a c o u r t mus t c o n s i d e r i n ru l i n g u p o n a m ot i on t o pr ocee d pro se . ” B uhlv. C ooks ey , 233 F. 3d 783, 795 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ); c

f. Mar t i nez v. C t
. of

Appeal of C al

. , Four th App. D is t. , 52 8 U

. S

. 15 2, 16 1– 62 (2000 ) ( recogn i zi ng t hat “m ost co u rt s ” have i nt erpr et ed Fa re tta t o r equi r e thata def endant a s s e rt h is ri g h t to s e lf

-r e p re s e n ta tio n “ in a tim e ly m a n n e r ” ). A ccor di ngl y , w e have hel d r eques t s t o pr ocee d p ro s e tim e ly even w hen made on t he “e ve of tr i al

. ” B uhl , 233 F

. 3 d at 795 (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s a n d c itatio n o m itt e d ); G o v’t of th e V

. I. v. Jam es , 934 F. 2d 468, 470 ( 3d C i r . 1991) ( r eques t m ade on t he f irst d a yo f

trial, b u t b e f

o re ju ryse lec tio n , w a s tim e ly ); s ee al s o, e. g. , W ill ia m s v . B a rtle tt , 4 4 F .3 d 9 5 , 9 9 (2d C ir

. 1 9 9 4 ) (a defe nd ant’ s r i gh tt o representhim sel f i s “ unqual i f i ed i f i nvoked pr i ort o t he s t ar tof the tr i al ” ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and c itatio n o m itt e d ) (e m p h a s is in o rig in a l)); Jackso n v. Y l st , 921 F

. 2 d 8 8 2 , 8 8 8 (9th C ir

. 1 9 9 0 ) (req u est is ti m elyif m ad e b ef o re th e ju ryis e m p a n e led ); C hapm an v. U ni t ed Stat es , 553 F. 2d 886, 8 9 4 (5 th C ir . 1 9 7 7 ) ( s a m e ).
H o w ev er, after tr ial h as “ co m m ence d”— i

. e. , atl eas taft er t he j ur y has been e m panel ed— “the r i ghtof s el f- r epr es ent at i onT o b e c le a r, w e d o n o t sug g est t h at distr ictco u rt s are 15 r eq u ir ed to de nya r eques tt o pr ocee d pr o s e m ade a ft era tr i al b e g in s . See U

nite d S ta tes v. C ociver a , 104 F. 3d 566, 570 ( 3d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). 38 is c u rt ai l ed. ” B uhl , 2 3 3 F .3 d a t 7 9 7 n .1 6 . In th a t co n tex t, d istric t co u rts h a v e d isc re tio n to d e n ya n u n tim e lyre q u e st to pr ocee d pr o s e a f

ter w e ig h in g th e “ ‘p re

ju d ice to th e leg iti m a te i nt er es t s of the def

endant ’ agai ns tt he ‘ pot ent i al di s rupt i on of p roc ee d ing s alread yin p rog ress.’” Id

. ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es 15 v. S teve ns , 8 3 F .3 d 6 0 , 6 6

– 6 7 (2 d C ir. 1 9 9 6 )); accor d U ni t ed Stat es v. B eers , 1 8 9 F

. 3 d 1 2 9 7 , 1 3 0 3 (10 th C ir

. 1 9 9 9 ); U ni t ed S ta tes v . M

a rtin , 2 5 F .3 d 2 9 3 , 2 9 6 (6 th C ir. 1 9 9 4 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. B etancour t
-A r r et uche , 9 3 3 F

. 2 d 8 9 , 9 6 (1st C ir

. 1 9 9 1 ); H or t on v. D ugger , 8 9 5 F .2 d 7 1 4 , 7 1 7 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 9 0 ); U ni t ed St at es v. O akey , 8 5 3 F .2 d 5 5 1 , 5 5 3 (7 th C ir. 1 9 8 8 ); U ni t ed S ta tes v . M

a tsu sh ita , 7 9 4 F .2 d 4 6 , 5 1 (2 d C ir . 1 9 8 6 ); U ni t ed St at es v. Law r ence , 605 F. 2d 1321, 1325 ( 4t h C i r . 1979)

. “H ow t hi s bal ance s ho ul d be s t ruck i s ul t i m at el yw i t hi n t he s ound di s cr et i on of the di s t r i ctcour t , ” St eve ns , 8 3 F

. 3 d a t 6 7 , a n d we w i l l r evi ew i t s deci s i on undera hi ghl ydefe r ent i al abus e- ofd is c re tio n s ta n d a rd

. C

f

. G en. E l ec. C o. v. Joi ner , 522 U

. S. 136, 143 ( 1997) ( not i ng t hat defe r ence “i s t he hal l m ark of abus e- ofd iscreti o n rev iew ”).
E ven assum i ng t hat the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s refusal t o add res s B ankoff’ s unt i m el yr eques t unt i l t he end of t he fi r s t day of tr i al resu lt ed i n a cogni zabl e ( t hough br i ef) “deni al ” of hi s r i ghtof self-rep re s e n ta tion , the C o u rtd id n o t abu se it s d iscreti o n . In39 l i gh tof B ank off ’s repeat ed chang es- of-heartand ang ryou tbu rs t dur i ng t he pr os ecut or ’ s openi ng s t at ement , w e thi nk i tappar ent t he C our tw as conce r ned thatB ankoff’ s r enew ed r eq u estw as e q u iv o c a l (a f

in d in g th a t w o u ld ju stif yd e n yin g e v e n a tim e ly r eques tt o pr ocee d pro se ). S e e Wi l l i a ms , 44 F. 3d at101 ( “[W ] hen a de fenda ntchange s hi s m ind [aboutbei ng re p re se n ted b yc o u n se l] a f ter trial b e g in s, o r d o e s so re p e a ted ly at any s t age, . . . t he conduc tcan be cons i der ed vac i l l at i on, and a trial ju d g e m a yf

in d th e re q u e st e q u iv o c a l.”); s ee al s o U ni t ed St at es v. St i ne , 6 7 5 F

. 2 d 6 9 , 7 2 (3d C ir

. 1 9 8 2 ) (“In d iscreti o n ary m a tters d e p e n d e n t u p o n o b se rv a tio n o f th e lit ig a n ts, a n a p p e llate cour t ’ s r evi ew i s l i m i t ed bec aus e i tcannotr epl i cat e the tr i al ju d g e ’s s u p e ri o r v a n ta g e p o in t.” ).
I n t hatl i ght , w e have no t r oubl e conc l udi ng t hat , by defe r r i ng an i nqui r yof B ankoff’ s r enew ed r eques t unt i l t he end of the fi r s tdayof tr i al ( and out s i de t he pr es ence of the j ur y ) , t he D istric t C o u rt a p p ro p ria telyb a lan c e d th e “ p re ju d ice to [B ankoff’ s ] l egi t i m at e i nt er es t s . . . agai ns tt he pot ent i al d is ru p tio n ” o f

th e tr ia l. B uhl , 233 F. 3d at797 n. 16 ( i nt ernal q u o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n o m itted). W e thu s reject B an k o ff ’s i m pl i ci tcont ent i on t hatt he C our tw as req ui r ed t o adj our n t he t r i al i m m edi at el yt o addr es s hi s r eques t once he i nt errupt ed the p ro se c u to r’s o p e n in g sta tem e n t an d re n e w e d h is d e m a n d to pr ocee d pro se . I n addi t i on, t he D i s t r i ct C our t not onl y per m i t t ed B ankoff t o begi n r epr es ent i ng hi m s el f the s econd da yof t ri al, but( 1) a llo w e d h im to re -c a ll th e f irst G o v e rn m e n t w itn e ss (w h o m h is40 at t or neyal r eadyhad cr os s - exami ned) , and ( 2) p erm i t t ed s t andby couns el t o t ake o v er the ques t i oni ng of B ankoff’ s fatherw hen h is f a th e r b e c a m e (u n d e rsta n d a b ly ) e m o tio n a l an d h a d d if f icu lty ans w er i ng ques t i ons . I n t hi s cont ext , w e bel i eve the C our tnot o n lya c ted w e ll w ith in it s d is c re tio n , b u t trea ted B a n k o f f w ith th e u tm o s t f

a irn e ss . A c c o rd in g ly , w e re jec t B a n k o f

f ’s S ix th Ame n d me n tc l a i m. * * * * *
W e v a c a t e t h e Di s t r i c t Cou r t ’ s g r a n t o f a j u d g me n tof acqui t t al on C ount T hr ee, aff i r m i t s ot herrul i ngs on appea l , and re m a n d th is c a s e f

o r f u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s .