FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT AUG 6, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

N o. 06- 1455 6 D. C. Docket N o. 06-00018 CR-5- RS UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us STEVEN WAYNE HA UN, D ef en da nt- Appe llant. Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida (A ug us t 6, 200 7) Before DU BIN A and BLA CK, Circuit Judges, and RE ST AN I, * Judg e. DU BIN A, Circuit Judge:

_________________________ *Honora ble J ane A . Restani, Chief J udg e, United States Court of International Trade , sitti ngby desig nation.Do dg e did no t te sti fy

at H a un ’s tr ia l. 1 2 Appellant Steven W ay

ne Ha un (“ Haun”) appeals the district court’ s order de ny ing his pos t- co nvi ct ionMo tio n f or Jud gm en t of

A cquit ta l and h is M oti on f or Ne w T rial. T he district court found Haun guil ty of violating 14 U. S. C. § 88(c) (2 006) , w hic h m ak es it

af el ony f or a n in div idu al to “ know ing ly a nd w ill fu lly co m m uni cate [] af

al se dis tr es s m es sa ge to the Co as t G ua rd or c au se [] the Co as t Gua rdto att em

pt to sav e li ve s an d p ro pe rty when no he lp is ne ed ed .” § 8 8( c). H aun arg ue s onappe al that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in de ny ing his m oti ons be ca use the G ove rn m en t di d no t pr ove spe ci fi c int en t. B ec au se w e co nc lud e tha t the sta tut e de fi ne s age ne ra l i nte nt c ri m e, w e af fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r de ny ing H aun’ s m oti ons. I. BACKG ROUND The tr ial testim ony

revea led the following facts. Ha un inv ited April Foley (“ Fo le y ”) , K athr

yn G ro ss ( “ G ro ss” ), S te ve n L if or d ( “ L if or d” ), a nd T ina

D odge (“ D odge ”) on a

la te nig ht/ earl y

m or nin g e xc ur sio n onhis boa t i n th e ba y in 1 Pana m a Ci ty , F lor ida . F ole y a nd G ro ss b othte sti fi ed

that the y ha d m et H aun be fo re t hi s d at e, bu t Li fo rdst at edth athe m etHaun forth e fi rs t t im e th atev en in g. A ft er the ind ivi dua ls b oard ed

the boa t, H aun a ske d f

or the ir c el l ph one s. O nly G ro ss r es pond ed

that sh e ha d ac el l ph one , a nd H aun to ld h er that he w oul d pu t i t3

in the glo ve box to keep it dry . Haun drove th e boat for sever al hours and then pa sse d c om

m an d to L if

or d so he c oul d pu ll H aun onar af t. F ole y , G ro ss, a nd Lif ord saw H aun zip and snap h is life j acket before he got on th e ra ft. Haun asked L if or d to m oto r out

of the bay int o th e G ulf

of Me xic o and g o f

ro m one r ed buo y to anothe r at

25 m ile s pe r hour . B ec au se it w as nig ht a

nd the towli ne w as about 140 feet in length , they

could no t see H aun on th e ra ft. Not long after L iford be gan pu lli ng H aun onthe r af t, F ole y a nd G ro ss a ske d L if

or d to c ut the m oto r be ca use the y f eare d th at H aun w as no l onge r on the r af t. L if or d c ut the m oto r, a nd the pa sse nge rs dis co ve re d th at H aun w as not

on the r af

t. T he y be gan m oto ri ng ar ound loo kin g f or him a nd f ound his li fe ve st f

loa tin g inthe w at er , unz ipp ed a nd unho oke d. Whe n th ey

r ea liz ed H aun w as m iss ing , the pa sse nge rs se ar ch ed f or the c el l phon e. T he y

did not f ind the pho ne w he re H aun to ld the m he w oul d pu t i t, but ins te ad , the y

e ve ntu al ly

f ound the pho ne tur

ne d of f, w ra ppe d inatow el , a nd stu ff ed in a be ve ra ge hol de r. U til iz ing the c el l ph one , F ole y c om m uni cate d a dis tr es s c al l t o th e Co as t G uard on H aun’ s be ha lf

. P etty O ff ic er Je ff re y D unn (“ Dunn”), United State s Coast Guar d, re ceived the distress call. The C oast Guard be ga n i ts sea rch at 4 :5 6 a .m . and ret urne d t o b as e fro m th e se arch at 4 :5 0 p .m .. A cc or din g to D unn, the F lor ida F isha nd W ild lif

e D ep ar tm en t ( “ FF W D ”) a nd the4

Coast Guar d work together on m issin g person searches in the wa ter beca use they ar e the onl y

tw o w at er

bound a ge nc ie s. N ea l G . G oss I II ( “ G oss ”) , a n in ve sti ga tor w iththe F FW D , w as inv olv ed in the H aun se ar ch . G oss te sti fi ed that w he n he spok e w ith Haun’ s father a bout Ha un’s disappearance, the father w as very m uch at eas e an d d id no t s eem

up se t. InO ct obe r 2002 , a n of

fi ce r w iththe I ndi an a St at e Po lic e fo und H aun ina sl eep er b ert h o f an eig ht een -wh eel er i n a n e xc av at io n l ot in Ind ia napo li s. Authorities arre sted Haun on October 25, 2002 . Er ic W ay ne Daniel (“ Daniel”), special agent with the Coast G uard Investigative Service, interviewe d Haun af ter his a rr es t. D an ie l no tif

ie d H aun th at

he w as sus pe ct ed

of the c ri m e of

f ed er al f al se dis tr es s. H aun to ld D an ie l tha t he ( H aun) ha d sp oke n w ithar ep orte r earl ie r in the day and gave the reporter a fa lse account of what happened. Ha un gave Daniel an ac curate a cc ount ing of

w ha t ha ppe ne d: h e le ft

aj et ski out on an is land e ar lie r in the day ; a s so on a s th e boa t st ar te d m ovi ng, he le t go , too k of f his li fe j ac ke t, sw am to the j et ski a nd r ode ba ck

to the m ar ina ; he the n br ie fl y vis ite d w ithhis gir lf ri en d be fo re he le ft

town. H aun m en tio ne d to D an ie l tha t he w as ne ve r in distress while he wa s in the water . The G overnm ent filed a superseding ind ictm ent alleging th at H aun had know ing ly

a nd w ill fu lly

c au se d th e Co as t G ua rd

to atte m pt t o save his li fe a nd5

pr ope rty w he n no he lp w as ne ed ed , in vio la tio n of 14 U . S. C. § 88 (c ). H aun f ile d a w ai ve r of his r igh t t o aj ur

y tr ia l and r eque ste d abe nc h tr ia l, to w hic h th e G ove rn m en t c onse nte d and the dis tr ic t c ourt a ppr ove d. A ft er

abe nc h tr ia l, the dis tr ic t c ourt f

ound H aun gu ilty . H aun r en ew ed his Mo tio n f

or Jud gm en t of A cquit ta l, a rg uin g th at

the G ove rn m en t’ s pr oof

a t tri al w as ins uf

fi ci en t t o pr ove t h a th e i n t e n d e dt o c au s e t h e C o a s tGu ar dt o r e n d e r un n e c e s s a ry a i d . S p e c i f

i c a l l y, H aun c ont en de d th at

the G ove rn m en t e sta

bli she d on ly

that he int en de d to sta ge his disappearance prior to a state court date; the persons who called the authorities ha d no kno w le dge of

his plan; a

state a ge nc y

c ont ac te d th e Co as t G ua rd f or as sis tanc e in s earc hin g f

or him ; and, a s part

of his dis ap pe ar an ce , he did not int en d fo r the Co as t G uard

to be not if

ie d no r did

he kno wthat the Co as t G ua rd w oul d be co nta ct ed . H aun a lso f

ile d aMo tio n f

or N ewT ri al on the sam e gr ound s. T he Governm ent oppo sed both m otion s, ar guin g that it proved th at H aun had acted volu ntarily , intentionally , and with the specific intent to do som ething th at the law forbids. T he district court summ arily denied both m otion s, and H aun filed a notice of appe al . II . ISSUE Whe the r the G ove rn m en t m ust pr ove spe ci fi c int en t i n or de r to o bta in a convictio n und er 14 U .S .C. § 88(c).6 III. STA ND AR

D O F REVIE W T his c ourt r ev ie w s de novo th e d is tri ctco ur t’s i nt erp ret at io n o f a s ta tu te . United States v. Searcy , 41 8 F .3d 11 93 , 11 95 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 1107 (2006). IV. D ISCU SSION Be ca use thi s c as e pose s an is sue of f ir st i m pr es sio n f or our c ir cu it, w e m

ust navigate uncharted water s in interpreting th e statute at issue. T his circuit has decided onlyone case under 14 U. S. C. § 88(c), hold ing th at, subject to another pr ovi sio n of

the statut e, a n in div idu al w ho i s gu ilty of kno w ing ly

c om m uni catin g a fa lse dis tr es s m es sa ge to the Co as t G ua rd w ill be li ab le f

or a ll co sts inc ur

re d a s a res ul t. See U

nited Sta tes v. James , 986 F. 2d 44 1, 444 (11th Cir. 1993). I n that ca se , w e sta te d th at

the de fe ndant c le ar ly

vio la te d th e sta tut e in s en din g ou t a f al se dis tr es s si gna l that se t i nto m oti on a se ri es of e ve nts a im ed

a t se curi ng h is ap pr eh en si on . Id

. “ In ot he r wor ds , but

for Ja m es ’ a ct ion s, the Co as t G ua rd w oul d not ha ve e xpe nde d any

r es our ce s onase ar cha nd r es cu e m iss iona nd s ubse que nt apprehension.” Id

. ( em pha sis in or igi na l) . I n James , w he the r the de fe ndant int en de d to c al l the Co as t G uard w as not a t i ssu e be ca

use the de fe ndant w as the on e who pl aced th e cal l. Id
.7

H er e, H aun ur ge s th is c ourt t o va cate his c onvi ct iona nd s en te nc e be ca use the G ove rn m en t di d no t pr ove spe ci fi c int en t; i. e. , that he w ill fu lly or int en tio na lly cau se d t he Co as t Gu ardto att em pt to sav e h is li fe wh en no he lp was n eed ed . H aun c ont en ds tha t a lth oughhe did sta ge his dis ap pe ar an ce in or de r to avoi d a sta te c ourt a

ppe ar an ce , he did

not int en d f or a ny one to co nta ct

the Co as t G ua rd , an d, in fa ct , suc h c ont ac t w oul d have int er fe re d w ithhis plan. H e cl ai m s th at the sta tut e re qui re s th at

the G ove rn m en t pr ove that he w ill fu lly int en de d f

or the Co as t Gua rdto be co nt act ed , no t t ha t h e wil lfu ll y di so be y edor d is reg ard edth e la w. H aun f urthe r sta te s th at

the boa t pa sse nge rs did

not c ont ac t the Co as t G ua rd , rathe r, astate a ge nc y

did . T hus, H aun a sks thi s c ourt t o va cate his c onvi ct ion because the G overnm ent only proved, at m ost, a genera l intent to act, and § 88(c) re qui re s pr oof

of spe ci fi c int en t. Instatut or

y int er pr et at ionc as es , w e ar e re m ind ed that the langua ge of

the statutes that Cong ress enacts provides “ the m ost reliable evidence of its intent.” U nit ed Sta tes v . T

urk et te , 45 2 U.S. 5 76 , 59 3, 1 01 S. Ct. 2 52 4, 2 53 4 (1 98 1) . T he re fo re , “ w e ty

pic al ly be ginthe ta sk o f sta tut or y c onstru ct ionby

f oc usi ng o n the words that the drafte rs have chosen.” Holloway v. United States , 526 U . S. 1, 6, 119 S . Ct . 966 , 969 ( 1999 ). I n so doi ng, w e re fe re nc e the pla in m eanin g of the sta tut e’ s langua ge , r el y ing on the w or ds’ “ or din ar y , c ont em por ar y , c om m on8

m eaning.” Pe rrin v. U

nited Sta tes , 44 4 U.S. 3 7, 4 2, 1 00 S. Ct. 3 11 , 31 4 (1 97 9) . W e al so c onsi de r “ not

onl y the bare m eanin g” of

the c ri tic al w or d or

phr as e, “ but also its pl acem ent and purpo se in the statuto ry schem e. ” Bailey v . U

nited Sta tes , 516 U.S . 137, 145, 116 S. Ct. 501, 506 (199 5). “ [T ] he m eaning of statuto ry language, plain or not, depends on context.” Ki ng v . St. V inc en t’ s H osp. , 502 U. S. 215, 221 , 112 S . Ct . 570 , 574 ( 1991 ). T he c ourt sh oul d “ ad opt that se nse of

the words w hich best harm onizes with the context, and prom otes in the fullest m anner the policy and objects of the le gislature.” U nit ed Sta tes v . H

art we ll , 73 U .S . ( 6 W all.) 385, 396, 18 L. Ed. 830 (186 7). H aun po sit s th at

Co ngr es s’ use of

the w or d “ w ill fu lly ” in the statut e at iss ue im plies that the statu te is a specific intent crim e. T he Suprem e Court has stated that “ willful . . . is a word of m any m eanings, and its const ruction [is] often influenced by

its context.” Spies v. U

nited Sta tes , 317 U . S. 492 , 497 , 63 S . Ct . 36 4, 3 67 (19 43 ). “ As a g en eral m at te r, whe n u se d i n t he cri m in al co nt ex t, a

‘ willful’ act is one undertaken with a ‘ bad purpo se.’ ” Bryan v. United States , 524 U. S. 184, 191 n.13, 118 S. Ct. 1939 , 1945 n.13 (1998). “ In other wor ds, in order to e sta bli sh a w ill fu l vi ola tio n of

astatut e, the G ove rn m en t m ust pr ove that the defendant acted w ith kn owledge that his condu ct w as unlawful. ” Id
. a t 19 1- 92, 118 S. Ct . a t 19 45 ( quot at iona nd c itatio n om itt ed ); se e als o Modern Feder al JuryIn Bo nn e r v . Ci ty of Pric ha rd , 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), this cour

t 2 adopted as binding prec edent a ll decisions of the for mer F ifth Circuit handed down pr ior to close of business on September 30, 1981. 9 In st ru ct io ns 3A.0 1, p . 3A-1 8 (1 99 7) , ci te d in B ry an , 524 U. S. at 191 n.13, 118 S. Ct . a t 19 45 n . 13; E le ve nthCi rc uit P atte rnJur

y I nstru ct ion s ( cr im ina l) 9. 1 ( 2003 ) (s ta tin g th at

“ ‘ w ill fu l’ . . . m eans tha t the a ct w as c om m itt ed vol unt ar ily

a nd purpos ely , w ith the specific intent to d o som ething th e lawforbids; that is with bad purpos e either to disobey or disregard the law ”). Haun attem

pts to m uddythe waters by

arguing that the statu te requires that the Governm ent prove that he knew he w as violating the specific lawhe w as ch ar ge d w ithvio latin g. C ri m ina l st at ute s, a lth oughthe y

a re to be str ic tly co nstru ed , “ ar e not

to be c onstru ed

so s tr ic tly

a s to de fe at

the obv iou s in te nti on o f Co ngr es s. . . . T he r

ule of c om m on s en se m

ust be appl ie d to the c onstru ct ionof crim inal statutes, the sam e as others. ” U nit ed Sta tes v . B ris tol , 473 F . 2d 4 39, 442 (5 th C ir . 197 3) ( quot at iona nd c itatio n om itt ed ) (n oti ng tha t i t i s di ff ic ult to

“ boot strap” a specif

ic intent requirem ent to a statute that has no comm on law basis); see also United States v. M eeke r , 527 F . 2d 1 2, 14 ( 9thCi r. 197 5) 2 (r ea soni ng tha t i f Co ngr es s ha d in te nde d to le gis la te aspe ci fi c int en t c ri m e, the st atut e wou ld ha ve sai d “ wit h t he in te nt to ”), quot ed in U nit ed Sta tes v . G ros sm an , 13 1 F .3d 14 49 , 14 52 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ).See Anderson v. Cagle’s Inc
. , 488 F.3d 945, 955 (11th Cir. 2007) (r elying upon a common 3 se ns e un de rs tand ing of

the wo rd us e d in the statut e ); United States v. Poirier , 321 F.3d 1024, 1029 (1 1th Cir . 2 00 3) (g ivi ngc omm on se ns e c on str

uc tio n to ind ic tme nt) ; Bel lS o u t h Telecomm ., Inc. v
. M CI m e tro A c c es s Tra n s m is s io n S e rv . , Inc. , 3 1 7 F.3d 1270, 1274 (11th Cir. 2003) (rely ing on c omm on se ns e re a din gof the statut e to c on c lud e that th e a uth or ity to a pp ro ve or re je c t a g re e me nts c arr ie s w ithit the a

uth or ity to i nte rp re t a g re e me nts that ha ve a lr e a dy

be e n a pp ro ve d) ; United States v. Zheng , 30 6 F .3 d 10 80 , 10 85 -8 6 ( 11 th C ir . 2 00 2) (l oo kin gto c omm on se ns e and

oth e r s ourc e s to aid in the interpre tation of terms in a statute) . 10 The language of the House Com m ittee Report discussing the bill that was la te r co dif

ie d a t 18 U . S. C. § 88 (c ) ind ic at es that C ongr es s w an te d to pe na liz e not onlythose who directly

com m unicate a fa lse distress m essage to the Coast Guar d o r d i r e c ts o meo n e t o s e n daf a l s e d i s t r e s s mes s a g e , b u ta l s o t h o s e wh o i n d i r e c t l y, by their actions, ca

use the Coast Guard to attem pt to save lives and property when no he lp is ne ed ed . See L ia bil ity f or F al se D istre ss C al ls, H . R. Re p. N o. 101 -6 84 (1990) (“ The sec tion app lies to the broad category of all individ ual action that causes the Coast Guar d to attem pt to save lives and property . The sec tion app lies to the br oa d c at eg or

y of a ll ac tio n th e Co as t G ua rd take s inr es pons e to the ind ivi dua l. ”) . B uoy ed

by our c om m on s en se , w hic h w e do n ot thr owove rb oard ,

3 w e co nc lud e tha t the pur

pose of the statut e is t o pe na liz e tho se w ho c au se the Coast Guar d to becom e involv ed when no help is needed, re gardless of whether the ind ivi dua l w ho p re ci pit at ed the dr am a in the ope n se as kne ww ithc er ta inty tha t the Co as t G uard

w oul d ne ed le ssl y

a nsw er the dis tr es s c al l. C ontrary to Haun’s a ssertion, the use of the w ord “ willfully ” in the statute does no t m ean that11

th e Gov ern m en t m

us t p ro ve sp eci fic in te nt in ord er t o o bt ai n a co nv ic ti on . See Mee ker , 527 F . 2d a t 14 . W e co nc lud e tha t the statut e de fi ne s age ne ra l i nte nt crim e. T he e vid en ce de m onstrate s th at H aun de vis ed

a nd e xe cu te d an e la

bor at e sc he m e to f

ak e his dis ap pe ar an ce to av oid a n im pe ndi ng c ourt date , a nd this sc he m e ca

use d th e Co as t G uard

to unde rt ak e a ne ed le ss s earc h f or him . H aun hi d a j et ski on an isl and to serve as his “ getaway ” transport and duped s everal acq ua in ta nc es in to be in g u nwi tt in g wi tn es se s t o h is “ di sapp eara nc e” at sea . H aun’ s a ct ion s w er e ne ith er a cc ide nta l no r m ist ak en ; the y w er e done kno w ing ly an d i nt en ti on al ly andwit h a ba d p ur po se eit he r to di so be y

or d is reg ardth e la w. Haun acted willfully

because he ac ted with knowledge that his cond uct was unl aw fu l. I t w as the se c al cu la te d a ct ion s th at c au se d th e Co as t G ua rd

to atte m pt t o sa ve hi s l ife when he , by hi s o wn ad m is si on to th e in ve st ig at or , was n ot in di st res s. It de fi es log ic to thi nk tha t H aun di d no t be lie ve his a cqua int an ce s w oul d c al l som e re sc uin g auth or ity

w he n th ey

r ea liz ed that H aun w as not

on the r af

t and m igh t be los t a t se a. Mo re ove r, in or de r fo r H aun’ s di sa ppe ar an ce sc he m e to b e s u c c e s s f u l , h e n e e d e dh i s d i s ap p e a r a n c e t o b e r e p o rt e da n dc o n f i rme db y s o me au th or it y . V. C ONC LUS ION12

W e co nc lud e tha t 14 U . S. C. § 88 (c ) doe s no t i nc lud e a spe ci fi c int en t re qui re m en t. T he G ove rn m en t m et it s burd enof

pr oof in thi s c as e tha t H aun kn owi ng ly andwil lfu ll y

cau se d t he Co as t Gu ardto un de rta ke a ne ed le ss sea rch . A co ntr ar y de ci sio n w oul d de fy

c om m on s en se a nd null if

y the int en t and o bj ec tiv e of Co n g re s s . Ac co rd i n g l y, fo r t h e f o re g o i n g re as o n s , we af

fi rm th e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s de ni al of Ha un ’s Mo ti on s fo r Ju dg m en t o f Acq ui tt al an d New Tri al . AFFIR MED.