### >ts

Gre-or y G . Skonla s (#3865 )

SKORDAS , CASTO N & HYDE , LL C ^^E

B 2 8 201 2 34 1 So . Mai

n Street , Suit e 30 3 HEARfN GDOCKP T /^SHiAR- S P 2 M 1 . SaltLakeCiW , UT84I] | - *.^-^ixuTIV 3 UV/WPV E I Telephone : (801)531-744 4 Facsimile : {801)531-888 5 Attonie v fo

r Defendant UNITE D STATE S O FAMERIC A

DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N OFFIC E O FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C . 

# rom s ^c^i - ii8< o I n th e Matter

of : Josep h Moessc r RESPONS E T O COMPLAINANT' S SECON D MOTIO N FO RDECISIO N FA A DOCKE T CP Unassignc d FA A Cas e No . 2010NM72000 1 Judg e RichardC . Goodwi n Th e Respondent , Josep h Moesser , b y an dthroug h hi s attorney , Gregor y G . Skordas , hereb y submit s th e followin g Respons e to Complainant' s Secon dMotio n fo r Decision . ( . Coniplninaii t

Misundcrstiiiid s Th e Natur e O f Th e Crimina l Procccdiii<» s An dMisapplie s Th e Doctiin c O f Issu e Preclusion . Rcspondenr s ple ao f

guilt y to amisdcmcnno r

informatio n a s aresu h o f pic anegotiation s wit h t!ie governmen t

i s aki n t o aconsen t

agreement

andwa s no

t intende dto preclud e an

y furthe r litigation . Moreover , not

all o f th e issue s raise db y Respondent i n th e criminal cas e were decide d b y the court . Th e Distric t

Cour t deferre drulin g o n Respondent' s vaguenes s claim . A . Th e 'frial Court' s Parlial RuliimOn Respondent' s Motio n T o Dismis s Wa s Not Essential T o Th e Judgment . 1

### "In mos t circumstances , i

t i s recognize dtha

t consent agreement s ordinaril y ar e intende d to preclud e an

y ftirthe r litigatio n o

n th e claimpresente dbut

are not intendetl t

o preclud e furthe

r litigatio n o

n an y o f the issue s presented . Thu s consent judgment s ordinaril y suppor t claim preclusio n bu

t not issu e preclusion. " I S Charle s Ala n IVrigh i Arthu r R . Miller , c t Eilwan l // . Cooper . Federa l Fradic e an dProcedur e § 4443 . pp . 3S4-3S 5 (1981) . Thi s differentiatio n i s grounde di

n basi c re s judicat adoctrine . I t i s th e general njlctha t

issu e jircclusio n attache s only "[\v]he n a n issu e o f fac t or la w i s actuall y litigate dan

ddetermine db

y avali dand(ina

l judgment , an

dth e determinatio n i s essential t o the judgment. " Restatemen t (Second ) o f Judgment s i

? 27 , p . 25 0 (1982) . Se e als o Arizon av . California , 53 0 U.S . a t 414 , 12 0 S.Ct . 2304 . ("a n issu e o f fac t o r la w i s actuall y litigate danddetcmiine db y avali dandfina l judgment , an

dthedetenninatio n i s essential t o thejtidgnient." ) I n th e criniin^il case , Responden t Hie damotio n to dismis s th e origina l felon y charges . H e raise dth e sam e lega

l argument s asserte di

n thi s proceeding . Th e trial cour t rule do n all bu t on e o f th e defense s raise db

y th e Respondent . However , tha t rulin g wa s no t

essential to th e fina

l judgment . The court' s ruh'ng di dno t lake (h e plac e o f ajudgment , whic h ca

n only be ha

deithe r b y aple ao f

guilt y or a n adjudicatio n o f

guil t b y the trie r o f fact . Th e court' s rulin g simply decline dto dismis s th e charge s prio r to tria l a s amatter

o f law . Th e lulin g shape dho w the jur y woul db e instructe da s to th e law i n th e event

o f atrial . Bu

t a t tha t juncture , th e Respondent stil l ha dth e right

t o pu t the governmen t

to it s proo f

a t trial . Respondent' s pic ai s mor e properl y understoo da s a

n admissio n o f

fact s andawaiver

o f an y lega l issue s tha

t ha dbeen raise di

npreviou s hearings . B y waivin g hi s righ t t o trial , h e als o waive dhi s righ t t o appea l th e tria l court' s rulin g o n hi s motio n t o dismis s befor e (h e Tent hCircuit . Suite danolhe r way . Responden t

agree dt o acompromis e wit hth e government , h e waive dhi s right t o see k ailna l determinatio n o f

th e lega l an dfactua l issue s b y th e finde r o f fac t an dhi s appea l o f

right i n exchang e for

adismissa l o f

th e felon y Indictment . Rt^spondent' s ple ao f

guilt y i s i

n essenc e astipulatio n t o th e fact s an dth e applicatio n o f

thos e fact s t o th e law . " A stipulatio n o r admissio n ma y h e bindin g i n late r stage s o f

acontinuin g proceeding . Bu t issu e preclusio n ordinaril y doe s no t attac hunles s it

i s clearl y show n tha t

th e partie s intende dtha t th e issu e b e foreclose di

n othe r litigation . " ^.S' . v . Boiefuhr , 30 9 F.3 d126 3 (lO" ' Cir . 2002 ) (interna l quotation s omitted. ) B . Th e Tria l Cour t

Di dNo t Rul e O n Respondent' s Vaguenes s Claim . Eve n i f thi s Cour t

dctemiine s tha t

Responden t

i s preclude dft-oni litigatin g th e issu e o f whethe r th e materia l h e offere dfo r transportatio n wa s prohibite dhazardou s material , lii s clai mtha t

th e applicabl e regulation s ar e unconstitutionall y vagu e stil l remains . Th e Distric t

Cour t judg e rule dtha t

DOT' s regulation s d o no t provid e a definitio n o f

th e exemptio n fo r

smal l ann s ammunitio n fo r persona l use . (se e pg . 1 0 Attachmen t

A) . Th e cour t

note dtha t

mos t othe r exceptions , for

exampl e curlin g irons , ar e well defined . Thoug hth e cour t decline dt o rel y upo n i n par i materi at o defin e th e teni i consisten t

wit hth e AT Fregulations , i t reser\'c drulin g o n th e questio n o f whethe r th e lac k o f aDO T definitio n o f

smal l arm s ammunitio n make s th e regulation s unconstitutionall y vague , (se e pg . 2 9 Attachmen t A )II . Th e Material s Responden t Possesse dFal l Unde r th e Exemptio n fo r Smal l Arm s Amnnnition . Th e DO T ha s jurisdictio n t o enac t rule s an dregulation s unde r o f 4 9 U.S.C . i

j 46505(b)(3 ) an d4 9 U.S.C . § 46312 . Th e AT Fha s jurisdictio n t o enac t rule s an dregulation s unde r I S U.S.C . v ? 844 . Se e 1 S U.S.C . ^

^ 847 . However , th e DO T an dAT Fprohibition s agains t trave l wit

h hazardou s material s hav e specifi c exception s for smal l arm s ammunition . Unde r 1 S U.S.C . vi

; 844(g)(2) , Congres s include da n exceptio n fo r

ammunitio n t o th e prohibitio n agains t

possessin g a n explosiv e i n a n airpor t unde r vi ; S44(g)(!) , cxplaim'n g that : "[t]h e provision s o f

thi s subsectio n shal l no t b e applicabl e t o . . . th e possessio n o f ammunitio n (a s tha t ter mi s define di

n regulation s issue dpursuan t t o thi s chapte r

[i.e. , chapte r

40] ) i n a n aii7X>r t . . . i f suc hammunitio n i s eithe r i n checke dbaggag e o r

i n aclose dcontainer. " Th e AT F ha s define d"ammunition " unde r chapte r 4 0 a s "smal l arm s ammunitio n o r cartridg e cases , primers , bullets , an dsmokeles s propellaut s designe dfo r us e i n smal l arms , includin g percussio n caps , an d3/3 2 inc han dothe r externa l burnin g pyrotechni c hobb y fuses . Th e ter mdoe s no t includ e blac k

powder. " 27C.F.R . § 555.1 1 (emphasi s added) . Th e DO T ha s include dasimila r exceptio n fo r

ammunitio n t

o it s prohibitions . C.F.R . § 175.10(a)(8 ) explain s tha t "smal l arm s ammunition " i s exemp t fro mth e restriction s o f subpar t C (4 9 C.F.R . § § I7MS5) : -'Thi s subchapte r doe s no t appl y t o th e followin g hazardou s material s whe n carrie db y aircraf

t passenger s .. . (8 ) smal l arm s ammunitio n fu r persona l us e carrie dhv a

. . . passenge r

i n checke dbaggag e onl y i f packe di n boxe s o r

othe r packagin g specificall y designe dt o can y smal l amount s o f ammunition. "Lik e th e AT Fexceptio n i n 1 8 U.S.C . ^

^ S44(gj(2) , th e DO T create dan exceptio n t o th e genera l prohibitio n fo r smal l ami s ammunitio n i n 4 9 C.F.R . § 175.10(a) . However , unlik e th e AT Fregulatio n i n C.F.R . § 555. 1 I , th e DO T ha s no t define d"ammunition, " eithe r i n aregulation , statemen t o r directive . Wher e tw o statute s o r regulation s us e th e sam e ter m an donl y on e provide s adefinition , court s constru e th e statute s o r regulatio n t o b e i n par i materi aan dappl y th e explici t definitio n t o bot hterms . Thi s i s becaus e court s assum e tha t "wheneve r

Congres s passe s ane w statute , it act s awar e o f

a/ I previou s statute s o n tii e sam e subject. " Erienhaug hv . Unite dSlates . 40 9 U.S . 239 , 24 4 (1972) ; Se e als o Unite dState s v . Fillnuu u 16 2 F.3 d1055 , 105 8 (10t hCir . 1998 ) (construin g 1 8 U.S.C . § 842(i ) an d1 8 U.S.C . § 922(n ) t o b e i n par i materi asinc e bot hstatute s relate dt o th e sam e subjec t matte r an dbot h use dth e ter m"indictment, " bu t onl y th e latte r

statut e define dth e tenii) ; Unite d Felecommunications , Inc . v . Commi.ssioner , 58 9 F.2 d1383 . 139 0 (10t hCir . 1978 ) (holdin g tha t th e i n par i materi adoctrin e applie s t o regulation s a s well a s statutes) . Th e i n par i tnaicri aiTile applie s i n thi s case . Bot h4 9 U.S.C . §46505(b)(3 ) an d1 8 U.S.C . v j 844(g)(r ) shar e th e sam e subjec t matter : prohibitin g hazardou s materia l durin g airlin e travel . Bot hstatute s hav e clarifyin g regulation s tha t exemp t smal l ami s ammunitio n fro mth e genera l prohibitio n agains t explosives . C f

4 9 C.F.R . § 175.10(a) ; 2 7 C.F.R . v j 555.11 . Th e ke y differenc e betwee n th e tw o regulation s i s tha t th e .'\T Fdefine d "ammunition " t o includ e "smokeles s propellant s designe dfor us e i n smal l arms " i n 2 7 C.F.R . § 555.1 1 an dth e DO T provide dn o definitio n o f "smal l arm s ammunition. " Thus , th e

### smokeles s powder for smal l arfn s i s "smal l arm s ammunition " withi n th e meanin g o f 4 9 C.F.R . i j 175.10(a

) an dexemp t fi-omth e prohibitio n i

n 4 9 U.S.C . i?46505(b)(3) . I n thi s ease , bot

h the plai n meanin g an

dth e legislativ e histoi y behin d§ S44(g)(2 ) demonstrat e tha

t the len n "smokeles s propellan l designe dfo r us e i n smal l amis " include s the smokeles s powder

Respondent

canie dfo

r us e i n hi s muzzl e loader . Se e iiingham . Ltd . v . Unite d Slates , 5^S F . Supp . 987 , 99 0 (D.C . Ga . 1982) (notin g tha t th e legislativ e histoi y behin d§84 4 and§ 84 5 suggest s Congres s intende dt o exemp t conventional sportin g ammunitio n fro m prohibition) . Becaus e Responden t wa s allegedl y eanyin g smokeles s powde r fo r smal l ami s i

n hi s checke dbaggage , an

di n acontaine r

designe dfo

r tha t puq)ose , hi s action s d o not come withi n prohibition s under

I S U.S.C . ? 844(g)(1) . HI . DOT' S 

### failur e t o provid e adefinitio n fur smal l arm s animuniHo n render s it' s regulation s to o vagu e t o provid e adequat e notic e tha t th e la w prohibit s placinj ; smokeles s powde r for smal l arm s i n checke dluggage . Court s hav e consistentl y refuse dt o impos e civi l or

criminal liability whe

n th e underiyin g statut e or regulatio n eithe r

"forbid s o r

require s the doin g o f

a n ac t i n tertn s s o vagu e tha

t me n o f commo n intelligenc e mus t necessaril y gues s a

t it s meanin g anddiffe

r a s t o it s application. " Lanier , 52 0 U.S . a

t 266-26 7 (1997) ; Unite dState s v. Councilman , 4 1 8 F.3 d67 , 84 ( 1 s t Cir . 2005) . Th e U.S . Supreme Court hel dthat , becaus e peopl e are "fre e to stee r betwee n lawfu

l an d unlawfu l conduct, " court s "insis t tha t law s giv e the perso n o f

ordinarx ' intelligenc e areasonabl e opportunity to kno w wha

t i s prohibited , s o tha

t h e ma y act accordingly. " Groyne d\' . Rockford , 40 8 U.S . 104 , 108(1972) . T o dctertiiin e whethe r astatut e i s vague , " acour t mus t conside r bot h 6whethe r

it provide s notic e t

o th e publi c an dwhethe r i t adequatel y curtail s arbitrar y enforcement. " Unite dState s v . Klecker , 34 8 F.3 d69 , 7 1 (4thCir . 2003) . I n Genera l Flee . Co . v . Unite dState s Fnv' t i'rot . Agcney , th e D.C . Circui t Cour t o f Appeal s foun dtha t

th e Environme/ita l Protectio n Agenc y coul dno t fine Genera l Electri c fo r distillin g asolven t

becaus e th e regulatio n wa s to o vagu e t o provid e adequat e notic e tha t distillatio n wa s an unapprove dmean s o f disposal . 5 3 F.3 d1324 , 133 4 (D.C , Cir . 1995) . Becaus e "th e regulation s an dothe r polic y slalemenl s wer e unclear , . . . th e petitioner' s inteiprctatio n wa s reasonable , an d. . . th e agenc y itsel f struggle[d ] t o provid e adefinitiv e readingo f th e rcgulatoi y requirements, " th e agenc y ha dno t provide dth e notic e tha t th e du e proces s claus e required . Id . SJmilariy , th e Si.xt

hCircui t Cour t o f Appeal s hel di n Springpeh i Armo/y . Inc . v . Ci/v o f Columbu s tha t

th e wordin g o f

acit y ordinanc e bannin g 4 6 specifi c firearms an d"othe r model s b y th e sam e manufacture r

wit hth e sam e actio n desig n tha t hav e sligh t

modification s o r enhancements' " wa s unconstitutionall y vague . 2 9 F.3 d250 , 25 1 (6thCir . 1994) . "Nothin g i n th e ordinanc e provide s sufficien t infomiatio n t o enabl e aperso n o f averag e intelligenc e t o dctemiin e whethe r aweapo n the y wis ht o purchas e ha s adesig n histoi y o f th e sor t whic hwoul dbrin g it withi n thi s ordinance' s coverage.' " Id . a t 253 . DO T an dAT Fregulation s contai n exception s fo r smokeles s powde r

for smal l arm s i

n cheeke dbaggage . Fo r

thi s Cour t

t o findtha t

thes e exception s d o no t appl y t o Respondent , it mus t first constm e th e statute s an dregulation s i n awa y tha t invert s thei r

plai n an dobviou s meaning . If

, fo r example , th e Coin' t

decide s tha t

th e undefine dlem i "smal l arm s ammunition " i n 

### 7th e DO T regulation s i s someho w differen t fromth e definitio n o f

"ammunition " a s use di n th e AT Fregulation s (whic hinclude s smokeles s powde r fo r us e i n smal l anns) , the n th e term become s vagu e t o suc hadegre e tha t it canno t b e enforced . A s wit hth e ordinanc e a t issu e i n Springfiel dArmory , nothin g i n tli c statute s o r regulation s provide s sufficien t informatio n t o enabl e aperso n o f

reasonabl e intelligenc e t o detcnnin e wlictlie r placin g smokeles s powde r for smal l arm s i n checke dbaggag e violate s th e law . I n fact , alitera l readin g o f th e tw o statute s lead s t o th e conclusio n tha t

an airiin e passenge r

ca n legall y carr y smokeles s powde r for smal l ami s i

n checke dbaggag e a

t an airport , bu t

b e hel dcriminall y liabl e fo r attemptin g t o plac e tha t checke d baggag e ont o an airplane . A s wit hth e challenge dregulation s i n Genera l Elec , neithe r th e regulation s no r

an y polic y statement s indicat e that th e la w prohibit s th e "smokeles s powde r for smal l amis " a

t issu e i n thi s ease . Fo r

thi s ica.son , the y hav e no t provide dth e notic e tha t th e du e proces s claus e requires . Fhe secon dclemen t

o f acourt' s revie w o f

avaguenes s challeng e i s whethe r th e statut e o r regulatio n adequatel y curtail s arbitrar y enforcement . Th e guideline s unde r Titl e I S an d4 9 d o no t giv e "reasonabl y clea r

guidelines' " t o follo w becaus e th e DO T ha s no t define dsmal l arm s ammunitio n eve n thoug hit , alon g wit hth e ATF , ha s create dexception s for ammunitio n fro mth e genera l ba n o n explosive s i n a n airpor t

o r o n a n airplane . Th e fai r warnin g doctrin e "bar s court s fromapplyin g anove l eonstrtictio n o f acrimina l Jitatut e t o conduc t

tha t neithe r th e statut e no r

an y prio r

judicia l decisio n ha s fairi y disclose dt o b e

### wiUii

n it s scope. " iMuier . 52 0 U.S . a t 266 . Thi s doctrin e "bar s unforeseeabl e andretroactiv e judicia l expansio n o f

narro w an dprcci.s e statutor y laiiguage. " Unite dState s v . I-Jnssein . 35 1 F.3 d 9 , 14 (citatio n omitted) ; accor dUnite dStale s v . ikdi}il . 20 1 F.3 d928 , 93 5 (doctrin e onl y applie s i f judicial intcr]3retation s "amoim t to a n unpredictabl e shif

t i n th e law") . i n Fab i Constructio n Co . v . Sec . o f Labor , th e D.C . Circui t

Court o f Appeal s vacate dth e fines tha t th e Occupational Safely an dHealt h Revie w Commissio n ha dimpose dbase do

n anove l definitio n o f

"formwork. " 50 8 F.3 d107 7 (D.C . Cir . 2007) . Th e agenc y announce dthe definitio n fo r the first lim e i n th e contex t

o f th e ease . Id . a

t 1088 . Becaus e the agenc y ha dnot provide d an y prio r notic e tha

t th e la w prohibite dihc defendant' s conduct , the Cotu l foun dtha t the defendant coul dnot

hav e ascertaine dthe standard s th e agenc y expecte dthemto meet , even afte r searchin g throug h th e regulation s i n goo dfaith . Id . a

t 1089 . Th e Fourt

h Circui t Cour t o f Appeal s reache dasimila

r conclusio n i

n Unite dState s v

. Iloeclisi-Cehines e Corp . 12 S F.3 d216 , 22 6 (4t hCir . 1997) . I

n tha t ease , th e cour

t addresse dachalleng e to th e EPA' s lin e levie dagains t Genera l Electri c fo

r a n allege demission s violation . Durin g tha t ease , th e EP

A attempte dto clarify , fo r the first time , tha t "'use' ' o f ben/cn e include drecyclin g a s wel l a s consumption . Id . a t 220 . Th e cour t hel dthai "i n vie w o f

the absenc e o f

an y explici t directive s .. . or

any instmction s i n an y othe r portio n o f

the rcgidalions " o f

the EPA' s interpretation , th e Governmen t ha dnot provide dth e notic e tha

t th e du e proces s claus e requires . Id . Lik e th e regulatio n a

t issu e i n Fab i Construction , th e Govenimen t ha s not provide dth e notic e require dto suppor

t th e convictio n i

t seeks . A searc h o f

the statutes , regulations , agenc y

### statements , an dth e publishe dadjudication s lack s any indicatio n tha t th e exceptio n fo

r •'ammunition " i

n the AT Fregulation s andthe exceptio n fo r "smal l arm s ammunition" ' i n the DO T regulation s d o not

includ e smokeles s powder fo r small arms . No r

i s there an

y indicatio n tha t the definitio n o f

"smal l arm s ammunition' " under the DO T rcgulalion s someho w doe s not includ e smokeles s propellant s designe dfo r us e i n smal l anns . a s d o th e ATFregulations . DATE D thi s ^

_da

y o f Febmary , 2012 .

SKORDAS , CASTO N .S : HYDE , LLC / ; y , ^

. " 7 f 

### Gregor y G . Skorda s ^

1 0

### CERTIFfCAT E O FSERV IC E

I hereb y certif

y tha t o n th e " ^ ' da

y o f Februaiy . 2012, 1 serve datru e an dcorrec t cop y o f the foregoin g RESPONS E T O COMPLAINANT' S SECON D MOTIO N FORDECISION , vi a facsimil e an

db y Unite dState s first

clas s mail , postag e pre-paid , t o the following : Federa l Aviatio n .Administratio n (Origina l & on e copy ) 80 0 Independenc e Ave . S W Washington , DC 2059 1 Attn : Hearin g Docket

Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbur Wright Building-Suit e 2W100 0 Facsimil e 202.493.514 2 Jeffre y M Harper FA A Offic e o f

Regional Counse l 160 1 Lin dAve. , S W Ronton , W

A 9805 7 Facsimile : 425.227.100 7 Th e Honorabl e RichardC . Goodwi n Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S . Dept . o f

Tr:insporta(io n 120 0 New Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Washington , D C 2059 0 Facsimil e 202.366.753 6 

# Qy^ ^ o:^^^.^^^ ^ Skordas , Casto n 8

c Hyde , LLC

1 1

# Attachmen t

ACas e 2:09-cr-00842-T S Documen t 6 8 File d11/19/1 0 Pag e 1 of 2 9

I N TH E UNITE D STATE S COUR T FO RTH E DISTRIC T O FUTA H

CENTRA LDIVISIO N

UNITE D STATE S O FAMERICA , Plaintiff ,

vs . JOSEP H PETE RMOESSER , Defendant . MEMORANDU M DECISIO N AN D ORDE RDENYIN GI

N PAR T AN D DEFERRIN GRULIN G O N TH E REMAININ GISSUE S RAISE D I N DEFENDANT' S MOTIO N T O DISMIS S TH E SUPERSEDIN G INDICTMEN T

CascNo . 2:09-CR-842T S

I . INTRODUCTIO N Thi s matte r

i s before th e Cour t

o n Defendant' s Motio n t o Dismis s th e Supersedin g Indictment. ' Defendan t

argue s tha

t dismissa l o f

th e Supersedin g Indictmen t i s appropriat e becaus e th e hazardou s material s regulation s governin g th e transportatio n o f smokeles s powde r an dprimer s o n passenge r aircraf t fail t o defin e "smal l ami s ammunitio n fo r persona l use" ' whic h i s a n exceptio n i

n th e DO T regulation s a t 4 9 C.F.R . i

j 175.10(a)(S) . T o provid e adefinition . 'Docke t No . 42 .Cas e 2:09-cr-00842-T S Documen t 6 8 File d11/19/1 0 Pag e 2 of 2 9

Defendan t

argue s tha

t th e Cour t

shoul dinteiprc t

th e smal l arm s ammunitio n exceptio n i n par i materi awit

hth e ammunitio n exceptio n t o th e AT Fregulation s regardin g possessin g explosive s i n airport s foun da

t 2 7 C.F.R . § 555. 1 I . Additionally , Defendan t argue s fo

r dismissa l on ground s o f facial vagueness , as-applie dvagueness , an dlenity . A s explaine dbelow , th e Cour t denie s th e Motio n regardin g th e i n par i materi aan dfacial vaguenes s arguments . Th e Cour t finds ther e i s goo dcaus e t o defe r rulin g o n th e vaguenes s a s applie dan dlenity argument s unti l durin g o r afier tria l whe n th e fact s o f

th e cas e ar e mor e clear. ' Th e Cour t

may reques t

additiona l briefin g o n th e matte r a t that time . Fo r purpose s o f

thi s Order" , th e Cour 1 consider s al l o f th e allegation s o f

th e Supersedin g hidictmenr ' a s true . I

n considerin g amotio n l o dismis s a n indictmen t

it i s onl y prope r

t o conside r fact s no t containe di

n th e indictmen t

wher e thos e additiona l fact s are undispute dan dth e governmen t

doe s no t objec t t o thei r consideration. ^ Th e governmen t object s t o considciatio n o f fact s outsid e o f

th e Supersedin g Indictment . Consequently , th e Cour t may onl y conside r

th e fact s a s describe dwithi n th e four comer s o f

th e Supersedin g Indictment. ^ II . B.^CICGROUN D O n Octobe r

1 , 2009 , Defendan t

entere dSal t

Lak e Inteniationa l Airport en rout e t o South Africa . Insid e aduffi e bag . Defendan t carrie dameta l bo x that containe d(1 ) a

n "unopened .

-FED . R . CRIM.P . 12(d) . 'Docke t No . 36 . 'UnitedStale s v

. Hall , 2 0 F.3 d1084 , 108 7 (10thCir . 1994) . 'UnitedStale s v . Welch , 32 7 F.3 d1081 . 109 0 (10thCir . 2003) . 1Cas e 2:09-cr-00842-T S Documen t 6 8 File d11/19/1 0 Pag e 3 o f 2 9

commerciall y package dcontaine r of'Hodgdo n fripl c Seve n Pellets," " whic har e pellet s o f smokeles s powde r

use di n muzzleloade r

rifies ; (2 ) an opened , partiall y empt y packag e o f Hodgdo n Tripl e Seve n Pellets ; (3 ) a n opened , partiall y empt y commerciall y package dcontaine r o f "CC I 209 M Shotshcl l Primers' ^ an d(4 ) tw o ful l boxe s o f

"25-coun t

Wincheste r

X X 1 2 gaug e shotgu n shells." " I

n bot hboxe s o f

shotgu n shells , th e to p ro w o f shell s appeare dt o b e commerciall y produced , new . unexpende dshell s wit hthei r primer s intact . Flowcver . th e remainin g fort

y shell s ha dexpende dprimer s an dha dbee n refille dwithothe r materials—thirty

eigh t containe dHodgdo n Tripl e Seve n Pellet s an dth e othe r tw o shel l casing s containe dmultipl e CC I 209 M Shotshcl l Primers. ' Prio r t o checkin g hi s luggage , Defendan t wa s approache db y la w enforcemen t agent s fromth e FBI. " TSA.' ' an dFAA' " an daske di f h e ha dan y ammunitio n i n hi s checke do r carr^-o n luggage . Defendan t

agree dt o asearc ho f

hi s luggage . I

n th e cours e o f

thi s initia l search , th e agent s informe dDefendan t that Tripl e Seve n Pellet s wer e no t peniiitte do n passenge r

aircraft . The y furthe r

state dtha

t th e primer s wer e ahazardou s materia l an dwer e no t properl y prepare dfo

r transportation . Defendan t surrendere dth e pellet s an dprimers . Th e officer s nex t opene dth e boxe s o f shotgu n shell s an dvisuall y inspecte dth e to p ro w o f shells . Upo n seein g th e shell s wer e

^•Docke t No . 36 , a

t 2 . 'Id . a t 4 . ^U.S . Departmen t

o f Justice , Federa l Bureair

o f Investigation . "U.S . Departmen t

o f Justice , Tiansportatioi i Securit y Administration . '"U.S . Departmen t

o f Homelan dSecurity , Federa l Aviatio n Administration .Cas e 2:09-cr-00842-T S Documen t 6 8 File d 11/19/1 0 Pag e 4 o f 2 9

ne w shells , th e agent s di dno t scrz c th e shotgu n shells . The y aske dDefendan t i f h e hadan y othe r "prohibite ditem s o r

"blac k powder ' t o declar e o r

disclose , an d[Defendant ] state dthat h e di d not." " Defendan t

the n place dth e shotgu n shell s bac k i n th e meta l box , returne dth e bo x l o hi s luggage , proceede dt o th e check-i n counter , an dchecke dhi s luggag e containin g th e metal bo x whic hcontaine dth e shotgu n shells.' " Latcr,.th c luggag e triggere da n alar mthat

prompte daTS A officer t o manirall y inspec t

th e containe r

an dit s contents . At

that tim e i t wa s discovere dthat

th e lowe r level s o f shell s ha dbee n previousl y firedan drefille dwitheithe r Hodgdo n Tripl e Seve n Pellet s o r CC I 209 M Shotshcl l Primers . Defendan t

wa s indicte do n Novembe r 4 , 2009 . O n Ma y 12 , 2010 , Defendan t filed a Motio n t o Dismis s th e Indictment , an do n Jun e 30 . 2010 , th e govenimen t filed aSupersedin g Indictmen t

containin g five coirnt s o f crimina l activity . Defendan t i s charge dwit

hon e coun t

o f delivering , fo

r purpose s o f

transportatio n i

n ai r commerce , th e hazardorr s materia l Hogdgo n Tripl e Seve n Pellet s i

n violatio n o f

4 9 C.F.R . iji

^ 172.101 . 173.27(b) . an d175.1(b)(2) , an d4 9 U.S.C . § 46312 ; on e coun t o f delivering , fo

r carriag e o n passenge r

aircraft , improperl y package d CC I 20 9 Shotshcl l Primer s i n violatio n o f

4 9 C.F.R . § § 172.101 , \72.20( ) e t se(/. , 172.30 0 etsec/. , m.AOOet.Kec/. , 173.27(b) . 173.62. 175.1(b)(2) , an d175.3 , an d4 9 U.S.C . § 46 3 I 2 ; on e coun t o f offerin g fo

r carriag e i

n checke dbaggag e th e hazardou s materia l Hogdgo n Tripl e Seve n Pellet s i n violatio n o f

4 9 C.F.R . i;i ; 172.101 , 173.27(b) , an d175.1(b)(2) , an d4 9 U.S.C . s ^ 5124 ; on e coun t o f offerin g fo

r eaniag e i n checke dbaggag e improperl y package dCC I 209 M Shotshcl l Primer s i n

"Docke t No . 36 . a

t 3 . '-/i/ . a t 2-3 .Cas e 2:09-cr-00842-T S Documen t 6 8 File d11/19/1 0 Pag e 5 o f 2 9

vioaltionof49C.F.R . ^ § 172.101 , \12.20 0 e t sa/. , \12.?>00 e t

seq. . 172.40 0 e l sec/. , 173.27(b) , 173.62 . 175.1(b)(2) , an d175.3 . an d4 9 U.S.C . i i 5124 ; an don e coun t

o f knowingl y an dwillfull y makin g fals e statement s t o specia l agent s o f th e FBI . TSA , an dF.AA . i n violatio n o f 1 8 U.S.C . -i

j 1001(a)(2) . b y statin g h e ha dn o othe r forbidde n items . 111 . DISCUSSIO N Th e issu e befor e ih e Cour t i s whethe r

th e smokeles s powde r

an dprimer s package di n th e shotgu n shell s fal

l unde r a n exceptio n i

n th e regulation s fo

r ""smal l arm s ammunitio n to r

persona l use " an dai e conscqircntl y exempte dfro mih e Departmen t o f Transportatio n ("DOT" ) rcgirlation s governin g hazardou s materials . Defendan t argue s th e DO T legnlation s fail t o defin e "smal l arm s ammunitio n fo

r persona l use " an dthat

th e Cour t

shoul d{I ) interpre t

th e DO T smal l arm s ammunitio n exceptio n t o hav e th e sam e meanin g a s th e ATF' ' ammunitio n exception , whic h doc s exemp t

smokeles s powde r

an dprimer s for

persona l us e fromth e regulation s governin g possessio n o f

explosive s i

n airports ; (2 ) findth e regulation s unconstitutionall y vagu e bot ho n thei r fac e an da s applied ; an d(3 ) dismis s th e Supersedin g Indictmen t du e t o th e rul e o f

lenity . A s discusse dbelow , th e Cour t denie s Defendant' s Motio n i n regard s t o th e adoptio n o f th e AT Flanguag e an dth e facia l vaguenes s arguments . I t defer s rulin g o n th e vaguenes s a s applie dan dlenity argument s unti l th e fact s o f th e cas e ar c mor e clear .

'U.S . Departmen t

o f Justice . Bureau o f

Alcohol , Tobacco , Fircanii s an dExplosives . 5Cas e 2:09-cr-00842-T S Documen t 6 8 File d11/19/1 0 Pag e 6 o f 2 9

A . LLGA LSTANDAR D A part y ma y mov e lo dismis s a

n indictmen t

unde r FFD . R . GRIM. P I 2(b)(2).' ^ A challeng e t o a

n indictmen t

generall y doe s no t

ope n th e doo r

t o questionin g th e strengtho f th e govcniment' s cas e o r

it s evidenc e becaus e th e "indictmen t shoul db e teste d.solely on th e basi s o f th e allegation s mad e o n it s face , an dsuc hallegation s ar c t o b e take n a s trire."''' ^ Whe n reviewin g amotio n t o dismis s a

n indictment , th e questio n i s onl y "whethe r th e allegation s i

n th e indictment , i f

true , ar e sufficien t

t o establis haviolatio n o f th e charge doffense.""^ ' Th e Cour t

may gran t

th e motio n i f

th e motio n onl y addresse s apur e questio n o f law.' ^ However , suc hdismissal s "ar e th e "rar e exception.'"' ^ Thi s i s becaus e dismissa l o f a n indictmen t i s onl y prope r

whe n "'undispute devidenc e show s that , a s amatte r o f law . th e Defendan t

coul d no t hav e committe dth e offens e fo r whic hh e wa s indicted."'' ' "I f conteste dtact s sunoundin g th e commissio n o f

th e offens e woul db e o f an y assistanc e i

n determinin g th e validit y o f th e motion , Rul e 1 2 doesn' t

authoriz e it s dispositio n befor e trial."' " Th e TenthCircui t ha s explaine dth e tw o ke y justification s fo

r thi s rule . First , th e rul e "r"espect[s ] th e lol e o f th e Jury" ; an dsecond , i

n "//(7// , 2 0 F.3 da

t 10S6-87 . '•Id . a t 10S 7 (citin g Russel l v . Unite dStates , 36 9 U.S . 749 , 763-6 4 (1962)) . ''hi . ''Se e Unite dState s v

. Pope.6\? > F.3 d1255 . 126 0 (10thCir . 2010) . "A/ , (quotin g Hal L 2 0 F.3 da t 1088 ; citin g Unite dState s v . Todd , 44 6 F.3 d1062 , 106 S (10th Cir . 2006)) . 'Vd . (quotin g Todd , 44 6 F.3 da t 1068) . '"/(/ . a t 125 9 (emphasi s i

n original) . 6Cas e 2;09-cr-00842-T S Documen t 6 8 File d 11/19/1 0 Pag e 7 o f 2 9

som e instances , "evidenc e adduce da t trial ca n provid e a"more certai n framework' fo r it s analysis.'*" ' B . DEFINITIO N O FSMAL LARM S AMMUNITIO N FO RPERSONA LUS E Th e Unite dState s Cod e require s tha t th e Secrctai y o f

Transportatio n designat e whic h material s ar c hazardou s an drequire s that th e Secretar y creat e regulation s governin g th e "safety aspects , inelirdin g security , o f th e transportation " o f

thes e materials. " Th e statut e stale s tha t neithe r th e statut e (codifie da

t 4 9 U.S.C . § § 5101-5126 ) no r it s correspondin g regulation s prohibi t "o r regulat e th e transportatio n o f afireanii (a s define di

n sectio n 23 2 o f

titl e 18) , o r ammunitio n fo

r afirearto, b y a

n individua l for

persona l us e . . . ."- ' Th e correspondin g DO T regulation s governin g th e transportatio n o f hazardou s material s ar e foun di n th e Cod e o i Federal Rcgulalion s ("C.F.R." ) Titl e 49 . Pari s 17 1 throug h180 . Th e issu e befor e th e Cour t i s no t whethe r smokeles s powde r

an dprimer s are covere db y th e DO T regulations , but rathe r i f the y ar e include di

n th e regulations ' smal l arm s ammunitio n exception . / . Pertinen t

Section s o f

th e DO T Regulation s Th e Tabl e o f

Hazardou s Material s an dSpecia l Provision s ("Tabl e o f Hazardou s Materials" ' o r

"Table"") , locate da

t 4 9 C.F.R . § 172 . lOl . provide s a n extensiv e lis t

with classification s an dothe r informatio n o n al l o f

th e hazardou s material s covere dunde r th e regirlations . Th e Tabl e prohibit s th e transportatio n o f smokeles s powde r

o n passenge r

aircraft . I

t

-'A/ . --4 9 U.S.C . §5I03(a)-(b)(l) . -7^/ . i ? 5 1 17(d)(2) .Cas e 2:09-cr-00842-T S Documen t 6 8 File d 11/19/1 0 Pag e 8 o f 2 9

provide s four

categories , o r

"shippin g names, " o f

smokeles s powde r

an dban s thcrn al l from passenge r aircraft."' ^ Th e Tabl e als o list s primer s a s ahazardou s material . I t provide s thre e categories , o r

"shippin g names," ' o f

ca p typ e primer s an danothe r potentia l shippin g nam e applicabl e i

n thi s case , "Cases , cartridges , empt y wit hprimer."'- ^ Bccau.s e primer s ar e liste di n th e Flazardous Material s Table , the y may onl y b e offere dfor transportatio n i

n commerc e i f "properl y classed , described , packaged , marked , labeled , an di n conditio n fo

r shipmen t

a s require do r

authorize dby applicabl e requirements " o f th e regulation s unles s a n exceptio n applies."'^ ' Sectio n 175.1 0 provide s exception s t o th e hazardou s material s regulation s to r aircraf t passengers.' ^ Th e sectio n state s i n part : (a ) Thi s subchapte r

doe s no t appl y t o th e followin g hazardou s material s whe n carrie db y aircraf

t passenger s . . . : 8 ) Smal l arm s ammunitio n fo r persona l us e carrie dh y acrewnienibe r o r passenge r

i n checke dbaggag e only , i f secirrcl y packe di

n boxe s o r

othe r packaging s specificall y designe dt o carr y smal l amount s o f ammunition . Ammunitio n clip s an dmagazine s mus t als o b e securel y boxed . Thi s paragrap h doe s no t appl y l o person s travelin g unde r th e provision s o f

4 9 CF R1544.219."' ' Anothe r sectio n tha

t i s relevan t

t o thi s matte r

i s J j 173.59 . Descriptio n o f

term s for

explosives , whic hstate s i

n part :

-'4 9 C.F.R . $ 172.101 . ''Id . ~"I d^ 171.2(e ) -7r/ . § 175.10 . ~'ld . § I 75.10(a)(S ) (emphasi s added) . 8Cas e 2:09-cr-00842-T S Documen t 6 8 File d11/19/1 0 Pag e 9 o f 2 9

Fo r th e purpos e o f

thi s subchapter , adescriptio n o f th e followin g term s i s provide dfo

r inforinatio n only . The y mus t no t b e use dfor

purpose s o f classificatio n o r

t o replac e prope r

shippin g name s prescribe di n See . 172.10 1 o f thi s subchapter . Ammunition . Generi c termrelate dmainl y l o article s o f militar y applicatio n consistin g o f al l type s o f

bombs , grenades , rockets , mines , projectile s an dothe r simila r device s o r

contrivances . Ammunition , incendiary . .A.mmunitio n containin g a n incendiar y substanc e whic hma y b e asolid , liqui do r ge l includin g whit e phosphorus . Excep t whe n th e compositio n i s a

n explosiv e pe r

se . i t als o contain s on e or

mor e o f ih c following : a propellin g charg e wit

hprime r an dignite r

charge , o r

afuze wit

hburste r o r expellin g charge . Th e ter minclirdes : Ammunition , incendiary , liqui do r gel , wit h burster , expellin g charg e o r propellin g charge ; Ammunition , incendiar y witho r withou t birrster , expellin g charg e or propellin g charge ; an dAmmunition , inccndiar)' , whit e phosphorus , wit hburster , expellin g charg e o r propellin g charge . Cartridges , smal l amis . Ammunitio n consistin g o f acartridg e cas e fitted withacente r

o r ri mfire prime r

an dcontainin g bot

hapropellin g charg e an dsoli d projcctilc(s) . The y ar c designe dt o b e firedi

n weapon s o f

calibe r not large r tha n 19. 1 mm . Shotgu n cartridge s o f an y calibe r

ar e include di

n thi s description . Th e icrt n excludes : Cartridges , smal l amis , blank , an dsom e militar y smal l arm s cartridge s liste dunde r

Cartridge s fo

r weapons , iner

t projectile . Powder" , smokeless . Substanc e base do n nitrocellulos e use da s propcllant . Th e ten n include s propellant s wit hasingl e bas e (nitrocellulos e (NC ) alone) , thos e withadoubl e bas e (suc ha s N C an dnitroglyceri n (NG) ) an dthos e withatripl e bas e (sucha s NC/NG/nilroguanidinc) . Cas t presse do r

bag-charge s o f

smokeles s powde r ar e liste dunde r

charges , propellin g an dcharges , propellin g fo r cannon . Primers , ca p t>pc . Article s consistin g o f ameta l o r

plasti c ca p containin g asmal l amoun t

o f primar y explosiv e mixtur e that i s readil y ignite db y impact . The y serv e a s ignitin g element s i n smal l anu s cartridge s an di n percussio n primer s for propellin g charges.' " Neithe r thi s sectio n o f

descriptions , no r

an y othe r

sectio n o f

th e regulation s provid e adescriptio n o f smal l aim s ammunition .

'Id . ^ 173.59 .

### Cas e 2:09-cr-00842-T S Documen t 6 8 File d11/19/1 0 Pag e 1 0 o

f 2 9

2 . Whethe r

th e DO T Regulation s Defin e Smal l Arm s Anunnnitio n Fo r Persona l Us e A s th e abov e regulation s show , i t i s ho t clea r what th e smal l arm s ammunitio n fo r persona l us e exceptio n founding ; 175.10(a)(8 ) exempts . Sectio n 175.10(a ) provide s exception s for numerou s item s thai may other'U'is e b e prohibite do n passenge r aircraft . Generally , thes e exception s ar e wel l defined . Fo r example , regardin g hai r curler s th e DO T exceptio n stales : (6 ) Hai r curler s (cirrlin g irons ) containin g ahydrocarbo n ga s suc ha s butane , n o mor e tha

n on e per person , i n carry-o n o r

checke dbaggage , 'fh e safel y cove r mus t b e securel y fittedove r

th e healin g element . Ga s refill s for suc hcurler s ar e not peiinitte di

n carry-o n o r

checke dbaggage.' " I n contrast , § 175.lO{a)(S ) fail s t o provid e adescriptio n o f smal l arm s ammunitio n fo r persona l us e o r contextua l clue s thai woul dprov e helpfu l i n determinin g i f

smokeles s powde r

an dprimer s for us e i n muzzleloadin g rifies ar c inclirdc dwithi n th e exception . Th e govenimen t

argue s that

th e DO T regulations , whe n considere da s awhole , d o no t includ e smokeles s powde r o r primer s i

n th e smal l arm s ammunitio n exception . Th e Hazardou s Materia l Table , irnder

"Ammunition , S.

A (smal l amis), " refer s th e reade r l o th e tcrti i i

n th e tabi c "Cartridge s for

weapons , etc.""' ' On e o f ncari y thirty subcategorie s o f Cartridge s fo r

weapon s i s "Cartridges , smal l arms.' " Whil e th e tabl e doe s no t provid e acros s reference , th e regulation s provid e adescriptio n o f

"Cartridge , smal l arms' " a t v ^ I 73.59 . whic hstales : Ammunitio n consistin g o f acartridg e cas e fitte dwithacente r o r ri mfire prime r an dcontainin g bot

hapropellin g charg e an dsoli dprojectile(s) . The y ar e designe d t o b e firedi

n weapon s o f

calibe r no t large r tha n 19. 1 mm . Shotgu n cartridge s o f an y calibe r

ar c include di

n thi s description . Th e tcm i excludes : Cartridges , smal l "7^/ . § 175.10(a)(6) . •''Id . § 175.10 .Cas e 2:09-cr-00842-T S Documen t 6 8 File d11/19/1 0 Pag e 1 1 o f 2 9

ariiis , blank , an dsom e militar y smal l arm s cartridge s liste dunde r Cartridge s fo

r weapons , inert

projcclilc.' " Th e govenimen t

argue s that , after

reachin g ihi s poin t

i n an analysi s o f

th e DO T regulations , a reade r shoirl dkno w tha t

smokeles s powde r

an dprimer s ar e no t

include di

n th e smal l arm s ammunitio n fo

r persona l us e exception . Th e Coirr t disagree s wit

hth e covcmment' s argumen t an dfinds tha

t th e rei^ulation s lac k

a definitio n o f

smal l ann s ammunition . Th e Cour t agree s wit

hDefendan t

that th e specifi c regulation s goveriiin g th e transportatio n o f ammunitio n d o not

speak t o th e exceptio n fo

r smal l ann s ammunitio n for

persona l use . Furthermore , th e languag e th e governmen t relic s o n doe s no t defin e smal l arm s ammunitio n fo r persona l use . Th e Cour t

als o disagree s wit

hth e government' s alternativ e argumen t that , regardles s o f th e lac k o f aclea r definition , smokeles s powde r fo r us e i n nuizzleloadin g rifie s i s clearl y banne d frompassenge r

aireraf i b y th e Hazardou s Material s Table . Thi s argumen t fail s becaus e ther e i s n o wa y t o reconcil e thi s clear ba n wit hth e smal l ar'm s ammunitio n exceptio n unles s th e exceptio n provide s adefinition . Consequently , th e Cour t mus t addres s th e argument s raise dby Defendant , namel y whethe r th e Cour t

shoul dappl y adefinitio n fromanothe r agency' s regulatio n o r whethe r th e Supersedin g Indictmen t shoul db e dismisse do n vaguenes s o r lenity grounds .

'-/d . 1 ^ 173.59 .Cas e 2;09-cr-00842-T S Documen t 6 8 File d11/19/1 0 Pag e 1 2 o f 2 9

C . I N PARI MATERI A I n 1970 , Congres s passe dth e Organize dCrim e Contro l Ac l o f 1970/ ^ whic hi s stil l i

n effect."'^ Par

t o f thi s la w regulate dexplosive s i n airporls . Th e purpos e o f th e statut e i s t o protec t interstat e an dforeig n commerc e agains t interferenc e an dintenuplio n b y reducin g th e hazar dl o person s an dpropert y arisin g frommisus e an dunsaf e o r insecur e storag e o f

explosiv e materials . I

t i s no t th e puipos c o f

[th e statute ] t o plac e an y undu e o r

unnecessar y Federa l restriction s o r burden s o n law-abidin g citizen s wit

hrespec t l o th e acquisition , possession , storage , o r us e o f explosiv e material s fo

r industrial , mining , agricultural , o r othe r lawfu l puqioscs , o r

t o provid e fo

r th e impositio n b y Federa l regulation s o f an y procedure s o r rcqirircment s othe r

than thos e reasonabl y necessar y t o implemen t an deffectuat e th e provision s o f

[th e slatirte].' ^ Th e Organize dCrim e Contro l Ac t specificall y slate s that

possessin g ammunitio n i n checke d baggag e i n airport s wa s no t

punishabl e unde r

th e law : (1 ) Excep t

a s provide di

n paragrap h(2) , whoeve r possesse s a

n explosiv e i n a n airport tha t i s subjec t

t o th e regulator y authorit y o f th e Federa l Aviatio n Adniinislratio n . . . shal l b e imprisone dfo r no t mor e tha n five years , o r fined unde r thi s title , o r

boili . (2 ) Th e provision s o f

thi s subsectio n shal l not b e applicabl e to—(A ) th e possessio n o f

amnurnitio n (a s tha

t tem i i s define di

n rcgulalion s issue dpursuan t l o thi s chapter ) i

n a n airport that i s subjec t

l o th e regulator y authorit y o f th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n i f suc hammunitio n i s cithe r i n checke dbaggag e or i n aclose dcontainer . . . .'^'

^•M»ub . L . 91-452 . ^•*1 8 U.S.C . § 84 1 et . seq . ''Pub . L . 91-45 2 § 1101 . ^'1 8 U.S.C . § 844(g)(2) . 1 2

### Cas e 2:09-cr-00842-T S Documen t 6 8 File d11/19/1 0 Pag e 1 3 o

f 2 9

1 h e A'f Fcreate dregulations , a s authorize di n th e Organize dCrim e Contro l Act , t o supplemen t

an dclarif

y th e Ac l regardin g possessio n o f explosive s i

n air|)or1s.' ' Th e regulation s includ e th e followin g definitio n o f ammunition : "Smal l arm s ammunitio n o r cartridg e cases . primers , bullets , o

v smokeles s propellant s designe dfo r us e i n smal l aims , includin g percussio n caps , an d3/3 2 inc han dothe r externa l burnin g pyrotechni c hobb y frrscs . Th e ter mdoe s no t includ e blac k

powder."^ ^ Thirs , inidc r th e AT Fregulatio n an dit s governin g statute , a n individua l may ente r

a n airport withsmokeles s powde r an dprimer s a s lon g a s thes e item s ar e locate din ' "checke dbaggage.' ' Defendan t

an dAmicus'' ' aigu e that th e Cour t

shoul dus e th e cano n o f constructio n i n par i materi at o appl y th e AT Fdefinitio n o f excepte dammunitio n t o th e DO T exceptio n fo r smal l ann s ammunition . // ; par i materia , meanin g i n th e sam e matter , i s alegal concep t tha t encourage s courts , whe n interpretin g avagu e statute , t o loo k t o anothe r

statut e o n th e sam e subicct.^ " Thi s cano n o f constructio n stand s for

th e propositio n tha

t '"court s d o no t

interpre t slalule s i

n isolation , but

i n th e contex t o f th e corpu s juri s o f

whic hthe y ar c apart , inchrdin g later-enacte dstatutes."" " I n Branc h V . Smith , th e U.S . Suprem e Cour t pluralit y furthe r

explained : '^1 8 U.S.C . ^ 842 . Th e statut e authorize s th e U.S . .Attorney Genera l t o creat e th e rcgulalions . Th e AT Fi s adivisio n unde r th e directio n o f

th e Attorne y Geneial . ''2 7 C.F.R . ;

j 555.1 1 (emphasi s added) . '''Th e Nationa l Rifi e Association . ''BL.ACK' S LA WDICTIONAR Y 79 4 (7t hed . 1999) . "Branc hv

. Smith . 53 8 U.S . 254 , 28 1 (2003 ) (Scalia , J. , plurality) . 1 3Cas e 2:09-cr-00842-T S Documen t 6 8 File d11/19/1 0 Pag e 1 4 o f 2 9

Th e correc t

rul e o f inteiprctatio n is , that

i f divers e statute s relat e t o th e sam e thing , the y ough t

al l t o b e take n int o consideratio n i n construin g an y on e o f them . . . . I

f athin g containe di

n asubsequen t

statute , b e withi n th e reaso n o f a forme r statute , i t shal l b e take n l o b e withi n th e meanin g o f tha t statirt e . . . ; an di f i t can b e gathere dfromasubsequen t statut e i n par i materia. , wha t

meanin g th e legislatur e attache dt o th e word s o f aforme r statute , the y wil l amoun t t o a legislativ e declaratio n o f it s meaning , an dwil l gover n th e constructio n o f th e first statute.'^ ' Th e polic y supportin g i

n par i materi ai s tha

t " alegislatur e doe s no t

deliberatel y enac t inconsisten t

provisions , whe n i

t i s cognizan t

o f the mboth , withou t

expressl y recognizin g th e inconsistency.•"•'• ' I

n othe r words , th e cano n i s base do n th e ide athat alawmakin g bod y wil l no t pas s alaw that

confiicl s wit

haprio r law i t ha s passe dwithou t

recognizin g tha

t contradiction . A s noted , i

t i s Defendant' s an dAmicus ' positio n that , i n th e absenc e o f

adefinitio n i

n th e DO T regulation s for

"smal l arm s ammunition," ' th e Cour t shoul drel y o n i

n par i materi at

o defin e that termconsisten t

withth e AT Fregulation . Th e Cour t i s concenie dwit

hth e reasonables s o f relyin g o n //

/ /)ar i materi at o constru e regulation s fromseparat e an ddistinc t federal regulator y bodies . At

th e hearin g o n th e Motio n t o Dismiss , th e Cour t

gav e th e partie s th e opportunit y t o submi t additiona l briefin g o n th e narro w questio n o f whethe r ther e i s cas e law t o support construin g regulation s tro mdifferen t agencie s //

/ par i materia.'^ ' Defendan t an dAmicu s submitte dbriefs . Th e governmen t di dnot , whic hi s unfortunat e a s i t may hav e prove dhelpfu l t o th e Court . """7<y . (quotin g Unite dSlate s v . Freeman , 3 How . 556 , 564-6 5 (1845)) . ' 7 B Sutherlan dSlatirtory Consti-irelio n 51: 1 (7t hed . 201 0 (W Lupdated)) . •"Docke t No . 64 . 1 4Cas e 2:09-cr-00842-T S Documen t 6 8 File d11/19/1 0 Pag e 1 5 o f 2 9

Whil e th e briefs o f

Defendan t

an dAmicu s mak e excellen t arguments , ther e ar e onl y tw o case s provide dtha

t directl y suppor t

construin g th e regulation s i n par i materia : Unite dStale s v . Bioeie , a199 0 cas e fro

madistric t

court i n Maryland,"' ^ an dUnite dState s v . Olesen , a196 1 cas e fromadistric t

court i n California.""^ ' I n Bioeie , th e defendan t

wa s charge dwit

hviolatin g 5 0 C.F.R . § 27.83— aregulatio n promulgate db y th e Fis han dWildlif e Service , aburea u i

n th e Departmen t

o f th e Interior—whic h prohibit s '""an

y ac t o f indecenc y o r

disorderl y conduc t

a s define db y Stat e o r

local laws" " on a nationa l wildlif

e refuge.^ ' Th e local count y ha doutlawe dnudit y i n public , an dBioci c wa s charge dunde r

5 0 C.F.R . § 27.8 3 fo

r sunbathin g partiall y mrde . Bioci c argue dtha t th e regulatio n di d"no t comprehen dprrbli c nudit y a s defined " b y th e local ordinance."* ^ I n an extremel y brie f opinio n th e coui l rejecte dthi s argumen t an dheld : Certainly , nudit y i

n publi c i s comprehende dwithi n th e commo n meanin g o f th e term"indecency, " an dth e nudit y nee dnot involv e a

n accompanyin g ac t

o f obscenit y t

o b e indecent . Rather , i

t ha s bee n hel dthat

intentiona l nudit y i

n apubli c are ao f afederal reservatio n fall s withi n th e definitio n o f "indecency" " i

n a regulatio n tha

t i s i n par i materi awit

hth e on e a

t issu e hcic.'^ "

•"•73 0 F . Supp . 1364 (D.Md . 1990) . •"•196F . Supp . 68 8 (S.D.Cal . 1961) . ''Biocic , 73 0 F . Supp . a

t 136 5 (quotin g 5 0 C.F.R . § 27.8 3 (1988)) . ''I d "'Id . (citin g Unite dStale s v . Hymans , 46 3 F.2 d61 5 (10thCir . 1972)) .

1 5Cas e 2:09-cr-00842-T S Documen t 6 8 File d 11/19/1 0 Pag e 1 6 o f 2 9

Th e cour t the n cite d th e cas e o f Unite d Stale s v . Hymans.^' * I t di d no t analyz e Hyman s o rprovid e a citatio n t o th e regulatio n tha t i t foun d t o b e i n par i materia , 3 6 C.F.R . § 251.93 . I n Hymans , th e defendant s wer e charge d wit h violatin g th e Departmen t o f Agricultur e regulatio n prohibitin g ''indecen t conduct " afte rsunbathin g nud e i n a nationa l forest.^ ' Th e are a wa s poste d wit h sign s prohibitin g publi c nudit yan d wa s nea ra pirbli c campground.^ ' Th e defendant s challenge d whethe rthei raction s constitute d "indecen t conduct " unde rth e Agricultur e regulation.' ' Th e cour t hel d tha t i t wa s "abundantl yclear . . . tha t th e typ e o f publi cnudit ywit h whic h w e ar e lier' cconccr'ne d i s indee d a for' m o f indecen t conduc t an d come s wel l withi n th e definitio n o f such.""'' ^ Thes e case s diffe rfro m th e matte rbefor e th e Cour t becaus e neithe rregulatio n i n Bioci c no rHyman s provide d a definitio n o f indecency . Hyma s hel d tha t publi c nudit ywa s include d i n th e definitio n o f indecen t conduct , an d Bioci cadopte d tha t definition . Still , th e Bioci ccourt' s us e o f th e ter m //) par i materi a show s tha t i t wa s applyin g wha t i t understoo d t o b e th e curren t definitio n o f th e regulation , eve n i f i t wa s derive d judicially . Defendan t likewis e ask s thi s Cour t t o appl yth e curren t definitio n o f th e AT F regulatio n t o th e DO T regulation .

''Hymans , 46 3 F.2d615 . '7r/ . at6l6 . ''Id . at 616,619 . *Vf/ . a t 618 . '••/,:/ . a t 619 .Cas e 2:09-cr-00842-T S Documen t 6 8 File d11/19/1 0 Pag e 1 7 o f 2 9

Th e secon dcas e tha

t support s Defendant' s argumen t i s Olesen . h

i thr s cas e th e governmen t

charge dOlese n withviolatin g afederal regulatio n that prohibite dhuntin g migrator y bird s i n place s wher e fee dfo

r th e bird s wa s commonl y pir t out—th e prope r

termfor huntin g i

n suc harea s i s baiting.^- ^ Th e federal regulatio n faile dt o identif y th e siz e o f

th e feedin g are afro

m whic hOcl.sc n wa s forbidde n t o hunt . Olese n argue dthat h e di dno t

violat e th e regulatio n becaus e h e wa s mor e than 20 0 feel awa y fromth e are awher e fee dwa s commonl y pu t out . an da stat e regulatio n governin g baitin g establishe dastandar dthat n o huntin g coul doccu r

withi n 20 0 fee t o f wher e th e fee dwa s located . Th e court reasone dtha t

th e federal governmen t

hadfaile dt o defin e "area " an dtha t th e stat e "regulation s ar e reasonabl e for th e protectio n o f

game."^'^ ' I

t cite daSuprem e Cour t

cas e fo r th e propositio n that

th e "Constitutio n presuppose s th e continue dexistenc e o f th e state s functionin g i

n coordinatio n withth e nationa l government."" ' Th e court hel dthat th e federal regulatio n wa s // ; par i materi al o th e stat e regulatio n an dexplaine d"[wjher c 'area ' i s define db y th e Slat e legirlatio n i

t mus t b e hel dt

o hav e bee n adopte db y th e Secretar y o f Interio r wher e h e ha s continue dth e federal regulatio n withknowledg e o f th e existenc e o f

th e slat e regulation."" ^ Thus , th e Olese n cour t

use di n par i materi at o appl y adefinitio n fro maslat e regtrlatio n t o afederal regulation . Whil e thi s i s no t what Defendan t

seeks , i t doc s suppor t

hi s argumen t

tha t 'M9 5 F . Supp . a

t 689 . '"Id . a t 690 . •Id . a t 69 1 (quotin g Pen n Dairies . Inc . v . Mil k Contro l Com

mn,3\ H U.S . 26 1 (1943) ) (intcr"na l quotatio n mark s omitted) . ''I da t 690-91 . 1 7Cas e 2:09-cr-00842-T S Documen t 6 8 File d11/19/1 0 Pag e 1 8 o f 2 9

ther e i s preceden t

for court s intcr|ireiin g rcgirlation s // ; par i materi aeve n i f create db y differen t rulemakin g bodies . Th e Cour 1 finds tha

t th e othe r case s cite db y Defendan t ar c no t o n point . I

n severa l o f

th e case s cite db y Defendan t an dAmicu s th e issu e wa s statutor y interpretation—no t r'cgulator- y interpictatio n after

Congres s ha ddelegate dauthorit y fo r ih c promulgatio n o f

th e regulations . I

n th e matte r

befor e th e Court . Congres s delegate dt o bothth e AT F(Attorne y General ) an dth e DO T (Secretar y o f

Transportation ) authorit y t o creat e regulator y scheme s governin g th e possessio n o f

explosive s i

n airports"' ' an dtransportatio n o f hazardoir s material s respectively." " Th e regulations , thus , creat e th e legal standard , rathe r than merel y ai mt o interpre t an dappl y statutor> ' law . Defendan t

an dAmicu s mak e astron g argumen t that i t i s absur dfo

r th e AT Fregulation s t o allo w aperso n t o ente r a n airpor t wit hsmokeles s powde r

an dprimer s secure di

n luggag e th e individua l intend s t o chec k t o onl y the n hav e th e DO T regulation s classif y th e powde r

an d primer s a s a

n unlawfu l explosiv e whe n th e luggag e i s actuall y checked.^' ' However" . Defendan t ha s faile dt o sho w tha

t // ; par i materi ai s a

n appropriat e mean s t o avoi dthi s absurdity . ''^E.g . 1 8 U.S.C . § 842(j ) ("It shal l b e unlawfu l fo

r an y perso n t o stor e an y explosiv e materia l i n amanne r

no t i n conformit y wit

hregulation s promulgate db y th e Attorne y General.") . ''""Th e Secretar y [ofTransportation ] shal l designat e materia l .. . a s hazardoir s whe n th e Secretar> ' determine s that transportin g th e materia l i n commerc e . . . may pos e a n unreasonabl e ris k t o th e healthan dsafety o r proper'ty . . . . Th e Secretar y shal l prescrib e regulation s for th e saf e transportation , includin g security , o f hazardou s materia l i

n intrastate , interstate , an dforeig n commerce. " 4 9 U.S.C . § 5l03(a)-(b) . ^''Docket No . 66 , a

t 4-5 ; Docke t

No . 65 , a

t 11 . 1 8Cas e 2:09-cr-00842-T S Documen t 6 8 File d11/19/1 0 Pag e 1 9 o f 2 9

'I'hcr c ar e tw o ke y difference s betwee n th e creatio n o f th e DO' f an dAT Frcgulalions . First , th e regulation s com e fromtw o differen t rule-makin g bodies , th e DO T an dATF . Thes e agencie s hav e differen t

sphere s o f

responsibility . Second , th e .AT Fcreate dit s regulation s t o gover n possessio n o f

explosive s i

n airport s whil e th e DO T create dit s regulation s l o gover n iran.sporlalio n o f

hazardou s materials . I t seem s incongruou s t o appl y a n AT Fdefinitio n t o aDO T regulatio n bccairs e ther e i s n o reaso n t o assum e th e DO T rule-maker s wer e cognizan t o f th e AT Fregirlation s o r

tha t the y wante dt o creat e aregulator y syste mfully i n lin e withth e AT Fregulations . Further , eve n i f cognizan t o f th e AT Fregulations , i

t i s logica l tha

t th e DO T coul dhav e believe dtha t existin g AT Fregulation s o n possessio n o f certai n item s i

n airport s wer e insufficien t t o mee t th e DOT' s separat e responsibilit y regulatin g th e saf e transportatio n o f

th e sam e items . Dir

e t o thi s an dth e spars e cas e la w o n point , di e Cour t finds that

th e doctrin e o f

i n par i materi adoe s no t appl y i n th e instan t case . D . FACIA L VAGUENES S Bccairs e th e Cour t

ha s detcmiine dthai th e DO T regulation s d o not contai n adefinitio n o f smal l arm s ammunition , i t mus t addres s whethe r

th e lac k o f thi s definitio n make s th e regulation s unconstitutionall y vague . Defendan t argue s tha

t i t woul db e prope r

for th e Court

t o rul e that

th e DO T regulation s ar e vagu e o n thei r face . However , a s discusse dbelow , th e rul e i n th e Tenth Circui t i s tha t facial vaguenes s challenge s are onl y prope r regardin g Firs t

Amendmen t

claims .

### Cas e 2:09-cr-00842-T S Documen t 6 8 File d11/19/1 0 Pag e 2 0 o

f 2 9

Fo r afacial vaguenes s challeng e t o succeed , acourt mus t find astatiU c woul db e vagu e i n al l o r nearl y al l o f

it s applications.*' ' I

f astatut e i s faciall y vague , the n i t i s voi do n it s face."" ' Statutor y challenge s o f

vaguenes s ar e base do n du e proces s pr'inciples.'' ^ Th e TenthCircui t ha s quote dth e Suprem e Court i n slating : "I t i s abasi c principl e o f

du e proces s that

a n enaclnicn i i s voi dfor

vaguenes s i f

it s prohibition s ar c no t

clearl y defined . Vagu e law s offen dsevera l importan t valires . First , becaus e w e assum e tha t man i s fre e l o stee r

betwee n lawfu l an dunlawfu l conduct , w e insis t

that law s giv e th e perso n o f

ordinary ' intelligenc e areasonabl e opportunit y t o kno w what i s prohibited , s o that

h e may ac l accordingly . Vagu e law s may trap th e innocen t b y no t providin g fai

r warning . Second , i f

arbitrar y an d discriminator y enforcemen t i s t o b e prevented , law s mus t provid e explici t standard s fo

r thos e wh o appl y ihcm . A vagu e law irnpeniiissibl y delegate s basi c polic y matter s t

o policemen , judges , an djirric s t"o r resolutio n o n a

n a dho c an d subjectiv e basis , withth e attendan t danger s o f

arbitrar y an ddiscriminator y application.""^' ^ Thus , vaguenes s challenge s protec t th e publi c fro

munintelligibl e law s an dfromarbitrar y enforcement."'^ ' Regardin g publi c protection , th e Tent hCircui t standar di s tha t

" apotentia l

'-Unite dStale s v

. Stevens , 13 0 S.Ct . 1577 , 158 7 (2010) ; Gonzale s v . Carhart , 55 0 U.S . 124 , 167(2007) . "-UnitedState s v

. Gaudreau , 86 0 F.2 d357 . 36 1 (lOthCir . 1989) . '"UnitedStale s v . Reed , 1 1 4 F.3 d1067 . 106 9 (lOtl i Cir . 1997) . '•'Id . a t 1069-7 0 (quotin g Grayne dv . City ofRockJord , 40 8 U.S . 104 , 108-0 9 (1972)) . "^'Gonzales , 55 0 U.S . a

t 14 8 ('"A s generall y stated , th e void-for-vaguenes s doctrin e require s tha

t apena l statut e defin e th e crimina l offens e wit hsufieicn t

definitencs s that

ordinary ' peopl e can understan dwhat conduc t i s prohibite dan di

n amanne r

that doe s no t encourag e arbitrar y an ddiscriminator y enforcement.'" ' (quotin g Kolende r v . Lawson , 46 1 U.S . 352 , 35 7 (1983) ; Po.ster s WThings . Ltd . v . Unite dStates , 51 1 U.S . 513 , 52 5 (1994))) .

2 0Cas e 2:09-cr-00842-T S Documen t 6 8 File d11/19/1 0 Pag e 2 1 of 2 9

defendan t mus t hav e ."^om

e notic e o r

fair warnin g that

th e conduc t

contcmplaie di s forbidde n b y th e crimina l law.'"' " Th e partie s dispirt e whethe r th e Cour t

may conside r

achalleng e o f

facia l vaguenes s levie d agains t th e DO T hazardou s material s regulations . Th e govcr'nmen t argue s that

facial vaguenes s challenge s may onl y b e raise di f th e Firs t Amendmen t

i s implicated . Defendan t argue s that

facia l vaguenes s challenge s may b e brough t i f th e statut e o r

regulatio n a

t issu e "threaten s t

o chil l constitutionall y protecte dconduct " an dthat hi s facial challeng e i s prope r becaus e thi s cas e deal s withth e Secon dAmendmen t righ t t o bear amis.'^' ^ Defendan t

cite s tw o case s t o suppor t hi s argument : Lanzett av

. Ne w Jersev , agan g membe r classificatio n case,*'^ an dColault i v . Franklin , a n abortio n ease.^ " However , neithe r o f thes e case s provid e a

n accurat e siatemen l o f

th e curren t law regardin g whe n facia l vaguenes s challenge s ar c appropriate . Rathe r tha n analyz e Lanzetta , a193 9 cas e addressin g th e vaguenes s o f aNe w Jerse y law tha t classifie dindividual s a s gangster s base do n prio r crimina l histor y an dcurren t associations, " th e Cour t look s t o th e mor e recen t an dsomewha t

simila r cas e o f Chicag o v . Morales.'

- I n Morale s th e Suprem e Court hel dtha t aChicag o ordinanc e targetin g gan g activit y mad e i t acrim e '•''Unite dStale s v

. Michel , 44 6 F.3 dI 122 . 113 5 (10thCir . 2006 ) (quotin g Unite dState s v . Prote x Indus. . Inc. , 87 4 F.2 d740 , 74 3 (lOthCir . 1989)) . '''Docke t No . 62 . a

t 5-6 . ""30 6 U.S . 45 1 (1939) . '"43 9 U.S . 37 9 (1979) . "Id . a t 452 . ''52 7 U.S . 4 1 (1999) . 2 1Cas e 2:09-cr-00842-T S Documen t 6 8 File d 11/19/1 0 Pag e 2 2 o f 2 9

t o continu e loiterin g i

n agrou p after

bein g ordere db y apolic e officer l o disperse. " Th e decisio n offere dn o clear

rul e o n th e applicatio n o f facia l vaguenes s claim s becaus e th e member s o f th e Court disagree da s t o ho w t o appl y afacia l vaguenes s challeng e l o th e Chicag o ordinance . Th e pluralit y argue dfo

r permittin g facia

l vaguenes s challenges . Th e concurrin g opinion s limite dth e plurality , bir

t i n differen t

ways . Justic e Scalia' s dissen t challenge dth e appropriatenes s o f afacia l vaiiuenes s challenge.'" ' Th e secon dcas e Defendan t cite s i s th e 197 9 cas e o f Colautt i v

. Franklin.' ' Colault i i s on e o f severa l abortio n case s wher e th e Suprem e Cour t allowe dafacial vaguenes s challeng e t o a stat e la w regulatin g abortions.' " Whil e facia

l vaguenes s challenge s wer e allowe di n cari y abortio n cases , tw o recen t case s demonstrat e ashil l i

n th e law . I

t no w appear s that

th e Suprem e Cour t

disfavor s facia

l vaguenes s challenge s t o abortio n stalutcs. " I n Ayott e v

. Planne dParenthoo do f Norther n Ne w England,' ^ a unanimoir s Cour t

reverse daFirs t

Circui t decisio n strikin g dow n aNe w Hampshir e statut e requirin g parenta l notificatio n prio r t o performin g a

n abortio n o n aminor . Th e lowe r coirrl s foundth e la

w uneonsliluliona l bccairs e i t lacke daprovisio n whic hwoul dpenni t abortion s '•Id . a t 47 . "Id . a t 73-9 8 (Scalia , J. , dissenting) . '-43 9 U.S . 379(1979) . '"E. g Doev . Bolton , 4[0\J.S . 179(1973) ; Unite dSlate s v . K(//Vc/; , 40 2 U.S . 6 2 (1971) . "Se e Gonzales , 55 0 U.S . a t 16 8 ("Respondent s hav e no t demonstrate dthat

th e Act , a s a facia l matter , i s voi dfo

r vaguenes s . . . .'") . "54 6 U.S . 32 0 (2006) . 7 7Cas e 2:09-cr-00842-T S Documen t 6 8 File d11/19/1 0 Pag e 2 3 of 2 9

withou t notificatio n i f

awoman' s lif

e wa s endangered. " fh e la w wa s challenge db y doctor s seekin g adeclarator y judgment , s o as-applie danalysi s wa s no t possible . Th e Cour t

frowne do n finding astatut e unconslitutiona l o n it s fac e becaus e voidin g a n entir e statut e i s "th e mos t blunt" " remed y availabl e regardin g constitutiona l challenges.'' " Eve n thoug hth e Cour t hadpreviousl y declare dasimila r

la w unconstitutional,' " i t state dthat

i t hadnot contemplate dutilizin g alesse r remedy.*' " I

t remande dth e cas e fo

r adetertiiinatio n o f

whethe r amer e injunctio n orderin g th e statut e t o b e enforce donl y i n aconstitutiona l manner'—b y no t requirin g notificatio n i

f th e woman' s lif

e wa s i n danger—woul dresolv e th e issue." " Ayott e stand s fo

r th e propositio n tha

t aCourt shoul dprefe r

iirdicial remedie s tha

t ar e les s intrusiv e int o th e lawmakin g role s o f stat e an dfederal legislator s ove r mor e exliern e remedies.^' ' I t als o highlight s th e Court' s shif i awa y fromallowin g facia l vaguenes s challenge s i n abortio n cases . Th e Suprem e Court furthe r demonstrate dit s disfavo r towar dfacia

l challenge s i

n abortio n case s i n Gonzale s v

. Carharl.^ ^ Carhar t

involve dafacia

l challenii c asains t

th e federal Partia l

'Vd . a t 324-26 . •^'7^/ . a t 330 . '^Stenber g v

. Carhart . 53 0 U.S . 91 4 (2000) . ^-Ayotte , 54 6 U.S . a

t 330 . "/f/ . a t 331-32 . ''Id . a t 328-29 . '-550U.S . 124(2007) . 2 3

### Cas e 2;09-cr-00842-T S Documen t 6 8 File d11/19/1 0 Pag e 2

4 o f 2 9

Birt hAbortio n Ba

n Ac t o f 2003 . Af\c r

initiall y holdin g tha t

th e statut e wa s no t unconstitutionall y vague,^' ' th e Cour t diseirsse da

t lengthwhethe r

afacial vaguenes s challeng e wa s appropriate.'' ' Whil e i t i s no t clea r whethe r thi s sectio n o f

th e Coirrt' s opinio n i s eithe r a n alternativ e holdin g o r

merel y dicta , i

t doc s offer

guidanc e t o lowe r

court s an ddemonstrate s th e tren do f disfavorin g facial vaguenes s challenge s outsid e o f aFirs t Amendmen t

context . Justic e Kennedy , writin g fo

r th e Court , stated : Th e consideration s w e hav e discusse dsuppor t ou r furthe r determinatio n that thes e l"acia

l attack s shoul dno t

hav e bee n entertaine di n th e first instance . I

n thes e circumstance s th e prope r mean s t o consider ' exception s i s b y as-applie d challenge . . . . Th e latitud e give n facia

l challenge s i

n th e Firs t

Amendmen t

contex t i s inapplicabl e here . Broa dchallenge s o f thi s typ e impos e " aheav y burden" ' upo n th e partie s maintainin g th e suit . . . . A s th e previou s section s o f thi s opinio n explain , respondent s hav e no t demonstrate dtha

t th e Ac t woul db e unconstitutiona l i n alarg e fractio n o f

relevan t cases . .. . I

t i s neithe r

ou r obligatio n no r

withi n ou r

traditiona l institutiona l rol e t o resolv e question s o f

constitutionalit y withrespec t t o eac hpotentia l situatio n that migh t develop . '"[IJ

t woul dindee db e undesirabl e fo r thi s Cour l t o conside r

ever y conceivabl e situatio n whic hmigh t possibl y aris e i

n th e applicatio n o f

comple x an dcomprehensiv e legislation. " Fo r thi s reason , '"[ajs-applic dchallenge s ar e th e basi c buildin g block s o f

constitutiona l adjudication."^' ' I n sum . whil e th e Sirpicrn c Court ha s no t expressl y overturne dit s prio r rul e permittin g facial vaguenes s claim s outsid e o f aFirs t Amendmen t

context , i

t i s clea r that sinc e Justic e Scalia' s in-depthdiscussio n o f th e issu e i

n hi s Morale s dissent , th e Cour l ha s shifie dawa y from

"•I da t 147 . "W . a t 167-68 . Id . (citation s omitted ) (alteration s i n original) . 2 4Cas e 2:09-cr-00842-T S Documen t 6 8 File d11/19/1 0 Pag e 2 5 o f 2 9

allowin g suc hchallenge s an dno w favor s onl y peniiittin g facia l vaguenes s challenge s whe n Firs t Amcndmen l protection s ar e involved."' ^ Thi s shif i i n th e la w i s als o eviden t

i n th e Tent hCircui t

cas e law . I

n Unite dState s v . Gaudreau^'^ ' th e defendant s challenge daColorad o commercia l briber y statut e a s vagu e o n it s face . Th e court

state dth e rirl e that

" astatirt e may b e challenge do n it s fac e whe n i t threaten s t o chil l constitutionall y protecte dconduct , especiall y conduc t protecte db y th e Firs t

Amendment."' " Th e court foun dtha

t th e statut e challenge dby defendant s di dnot threate n l o chil l constitutionall y protecte dconduct . Thus , th e court hel dtha t facial analysi s wa s no t

prope r an danalyze dth e statut e a s ai)plicd.'' " Nearl y adecad e later , i

n Unite dState s v

. Reed , th e Tent hCircui t addresse dwhethe r

th e distric t coirr t ha dcorrectl y rejecte dafacia l vaguenes s challeng e regardin g astatut e that forbad e dnr g user s frombein g i

n possessio n o f

afireanii.''^ Th e court

held : Notwithstandin g th e importan t valrrc s protecte dby th e vaguenes s docirinc . a s th e distric t judg e correctl y recognize dth e doctrine' s applicatio n i s limite dwhe n '"Se e al.s'o Unite dSlate s v . WUIiams , 55 3 U.S . 28 5 (2008 ) ("Althoug hordinaril y '[a ] piaintifi " wh o engage s i

n som e conduc t

tha t i s clearl y proscribe dcanno t complai n o f

th e vaguenes s o f

th e la w a s applie dt o th e conduc t o f others. ' w e hav e relaxe dtha t requiremen t

i n th e Firs t Amendmen t

contex t . . . . " (qirotin g Hoffma

n Estate s v . Flipside . Ilojfma n Estates . Inc. , 45 5 U.S . 489 . 494-9 5 & n.6 , 7 (1982)) . "'S60F.2d357(lOlhCir . 1989) . "'/r/ . a t 360 . Th e coirr

t cite di n afootnot e th e sam e tw o case s Defendan t cite s a s example s o f constitutionall y protecte dconduct , namel y Colault i v . Franklin , 43 9 U.S . 37 9 (1979 ) (abortio n case ) an dLanzett av . Ne w Jersey , 30 6 U.S . 45 1 (1939 ) (gangste r b y associatio n case) . '''Id . a t 361 .

" M 1 4 F.3 d1067 . 106 9 ( I Oi hCir . 1997) . 2 5Cas e 2:09-cr-00842-T S Documen t 6 8 File d 11/19/1 0 Pag e 2 6 o f 2 9

invoke di n acontex t

suc ha s thi s whic hdoc s no t implicat e Firs t

Amendmen t values . .- / vaguenes s challeng e i

n thi s contex t

canno t b e aime da t

th e statut e o n it s fac e bu t mus t b e limite dt o th e applicatio n o f th e statut e l o th e particula r conduc t charged.' " Thus , i n Ree dth e Circui t

shifte dfromallowin g facia l vaguenes s challenges/;/'//»rt/'// v i n Firs t Amendmen t

case s l o allowin g ihc monl y i n Firs t Amendmen t

cases . Th e Ree drul e ha s recentl y bee n reiterate di

n Unite dState s v . Michel , wher e th e defendan t challenge dasentencin g enhancemen t

statut e a s vagu e a s applie dt o him . Ther e th e court stated : "Wher e avaguenes s challeng e doe s no t

implicat e Firs t

Amendmen t

freedoms , oir

r revie w i s limite dt o th e 'applicatio n o f th e slaiul c t o th e particula r conduc t charged.""' ' Thes e mos t

recen t case s frombot

hth e Suprem e Cour t

an dth e particularl y th e Tenth Circui t hav e bee n clear : facial vaguenes s challenge s ar c onl y prope r i n th e Firs t

Amendmen t context." " Th e ease s cite dby Defendan t d o no t provid e an accurat e statemen t o f th e curren t

law . Thus , th e Cour t

denie s Defendant' s Motio n t o Dismis s th e Supersedin g Indictmen t insofa r a s i t ask s thi s Cour t

l o declar e th e regulatio n voi dfor facial vauucncss .

'"Id . a t 107 0 (emphasi s added ) (citin g Unite dState s v . Powell , 42 3 U.S . 87 . 9 2 (1975) : Unite dState s v . Mazurie , 4\ 9 U.S . 544 , 55 0 (1975) ; Unite dState s v . Oeegueda , 56 4 F.2 d1362 , 136 5 (9thCir . 1977)) . '"Unite dState s v . Michel , 44 6 F.3 d1 122 , I 13 5 (10thCir . 2006 ) (quotin g y?e67/ , 11 4 F.3 d a t 1070) . ^'Thcr e i s a

n arszurncn

t t o b e mad e tha

t th e Secon dAmendment' s individua l righ t t o bear arm s i s mor e aki n t o th e Firs t Amendmen t

individua l libertie s than t o privac y rights an dabortio n i n particular' , an dtherefore , individual s shoul db e abl e t o brin g facial vaguenes s challenge s i n Secon dAmendmen t

cases . However , ther e i s cunentl y n o cas e law t o suppor t allowin g facia

l vaguenes s challenge s i

n Secon dAmendmen t

cases . 2 6Cas e 2:09-cr-00842-T S Documen t 6 8 File d11/19/1 0 Pag e 2 7 o f 2 9

E . AS-APPLIE D VAGUENES S A s th e charge s agains t

Defendan t

d o not implicat e th e Firs t

Amendment , th e Cour t

i s limite dt o considerin g hi s vaguenes s challeng e a s challengin g th e regulation s a s applie di n light o f th e particula r

conduc t charged. " Suc hdelcrtiiinalion s ar e fact base dan dar c no t

generall y prope r i n apre-tria l order , "fhi s Coirr t may onl y mak e determination s o n pre-tria l motion s i n crimina l matter s i f

i t can d o s o "'withou t

airial o f th e genera l issue.'"'' ^ "I n acrimina l ease , th e 'genera l issue ' i s 'define da s evidenc e relevan t l o th e questio n o f

guil t o r innocence.""'^' ^ Thus , "i l conteste dfact s surroundin g th e commissio n o f th e offens e woul db e o f an y assistanc e i

n detcniiinin g th e validit y o f th e molion , [FRIJ . R . CRIM . P. ] Rul e 1 2 doesn' t authoriz e it s dispositio n befor e trial."'" " I n Unite dState s v

. Pope , th e Tent hCircui t recentl y describe dth e polic y supportin g thi s rule : "Eve n whe n th e court i s ultimatel y responsibl e fo r decidin g th e merit s o f alegal defense , i

t i s sometime s sai devidenc e adduce da t trial can provid e a'mor e certai n framework ' fo

r it s analysi s . . . ."" " Pop e reiterate dthat distric t court s ar c extremel y limite di n thei r powe r t o detennin e pre-tria l motion s i n crimina l matters . Unite d.Stale s i' . Ree di s aTent hCircui t eas e o n point . I

t involve dpre-tria l dismissa l o n ground s o f

vaguenes s a s applied . Th e distric t court ha drelie do n evidenc e proffere db y th e %V//W/e/ , 44 6 F.3 da

t 1135 . '"FEU . R . CRIM . P . 12(b)(2) . '"Unite dState s v . Pope , 61 3 F.3 d1255 , 125 9 (10thCir . 2010 ) (quotin g Unite dState s v . Yakou , 42 8 F.3 d241 , 24 6 (D.C . Cir . 2005)) . '""/(•/. (emphasi s i

n original ) '"'I d(citing/?cfJ , ll4F.3da t 1070) . 2 7Cas e 2:09-cr-00842-T S Documen t 6 8 File d11/19/1 0 Pag e 2 8 o f 2 9

govenimen t

an dno t objecte dt o b y th e defendant . Th e Tent hCircui t reverse dan dhel dthat

th e distric t coirr t erre di n rulin g o n a

n as-applie dvaguenes s challeng e prio r t o trial becaus e suc ha deteniiinatio n "shoul db e base donl y o n th e fact s a s the y emerg e a t trial."'" " I n applyin g Ree dan dPop e t o thi s mailer' , i t i s clear tha t th e Cour t

may no t r'ulc o n a n as applie dvaguenes s challeng e unti l afie r factual dcler"minalion s ar e mad e a t trial i f suc h dctemiination s may b e o f an y us e t o th e Court' s decision-makin g process . Th e Cour t finds that suc hadeterminatio n o f

th e fact s woul db e usefu l i n thi s matter . Conscqirenily , th e Court wil l defe r it s I'ulin g o n th e as-applie dvaguenes s challenge . F . TH E RUL E O FLENIT Y Defendan t

argue s fo

r dismissa l du e l o th e rul e o f lenity . "Th e rul e o f

lenity i s aprincipl e o f slatuloi' y construction " tha t insti'uct s court s t o interpre t ambiguou s crimina l statute s i n favo r o f th e defendant.'" ^ I

t applie s onl y i

n instance s wher e ther e i s a""grievou s ambiguit y o r uncertaint y i n th e statute'"'"" * an dih c ambiguit y stil l exist s after examinin g th e tex t

an dhistor y o f

th e statute.'" *

''''Reed . \1 4 F.3 da

t 107 0 (quote di

n Pope , 61 3 F.3 da

t 1259) .

'''^ Unite dState s v . Meizener , 58 4 F.3 d928 , 934-3 5 (10thCir . 2009) . ""Barbe r v . Thomas , 13 0 S.Ct . 2499 , 250 9 (2010 ) (quotin g Musearell o \> . Unite dStates , 52 4 U.S . 125 , 139(1998)) . ""Id. ; Metzener , 58 4 F.3 da t 93 5 (quotin g Unite dState s v . Bo<nh , 55 1 F.3 d535 , 54 1 (6t h Cir . 2009)) .Cas e 2:09-cr-00842-T S Documen t 6 8 File d 11/19/1 0 Pag e 2 9 o f 2 9

Th e rul e fromPope , a s describe dabove , applie s t o al l pre-tria l motion s i n crin"iina l matters . Thus , i f

an y factual deteniiination s woul dai dth e Cour t i n determinin g whethe r

lenity i s proper , th e decisio n shoirl db e mad e post-trial . Th e Cour t

finds tha t factual deicrtiiination s may b e usefu l i n decidin g whethe r

th e nrl e of

lenity applie s i

n thi s case . Th e Cour t

conscqircntl y defer s rulin g o n th e issu e unti l afie r trial . IV . CONCLUSIO N Base do n th e discussio n above , th e Cour t DENIE S th e Motio n t o Dismis s th e Supersedin g Indictmen t

(Docke t No . 42 ) a s t o Defendant' s i n par i materi aan dfacia l vaguenes s argument s an dDEFER S RULIN GO N th e Motio n a s l o Defendant' s argument s regardin g a.s applie dvaguenes s an dlenity unti l after trial . Th e Cour t

order s thai ih c partie s appea r fo r astatu s an dschedulin g conferenc e o n Decembe r

10 . 2010 , a

t 9:0 0 a.m. , a

t whic htim e atrial dal e fo r thi s matte r

wil l b e set . Th e Coirr

t furthe r order s th e lim e fromMa y 24 , 2010 , unti l th e tria l dal e o f thi s Orde r

shal l constitut e excludabl e tim e unde r

th e Speed y Tria l Act.'"^ ' DATE D Novembe r

19 . 2010 . I3

Y TH E COURT : TEEjXfEWAR T Unilc(l-STalc s Distric t

Judg e

"" 1 S U.S.C . v

j 3 I6l(h) ( I )(D ) (dela y resultin g fromapretria l motion ) & (h)(1)(H ) (dela y unde r thirty day s whic hmatte r wa s unde r

advisemen t

o f th e Courl) . 2 9