Document: 127 S. Ct. 625 (2006) 549 U.S. 47 Jose Antonio LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General. No. 05-547. Supreme Court of United States. Argued October 3, 2006. Decided December 5, *627 Patricia G. Mattos, Mattos Law Office, St. Paul, MN, Robert A. Long, Counsel Record, Theodore P. Metzler, Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, DC, for Petitioner. Paul D. Clement, Solicitor General, Peter Keisler, Alice Fisher, Assistant Attorneys Edwin Kneedler, Michael Dreeben, Deputy Solicitors Millett, to the Donald E. Keener, John Andre, Thomas M. Gannon, Margaret Perry, Bryan Beier, Attorneys, Department Justice, D.C., respondents. Justice SOUTER delivered opinion Court. The question raised is whether conduct made a felony under state law but misdemeanor Controlled Substances Act "felony punishable Act." 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2). We hold it not. I A Immigration and Nationality (INA) defines term "aggravated felony" *628 by list that mentions "illicit trafficking in controlled substance ... including drug crime (as defined section 924(c) title 18)." 101(a)(43)(B), as added 7342, 102 Stat. 4469, amended 222(a), 108 4320, 8 1101(a)(43)(B). general phrase trafficking" left undefined, 924(c)(2) Title identifies subcategory defining "drug crime" "any Act" or either two other federal statutes having no bearing on this case. Following listing, 101(a)(43) INA provides its penultimate sentence "[t]he [aggravated felony] applies an offense described paragraph violation Federal State law" or, certain circumstances, "the foreign country." 1101(a)(43). An aggravated criminal record has worse collateral effects than conviction simple. Under immigration statutes, example, General's discretion cancel removal person otherwise deportable does not reach convict felony. 1229b(a)(3). Nor felon eligible asylum. §§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), 1158(b)(2)(B)(i). And sentencing law, Guidelines attach special significance designation: unlawfully entering remaining States receives eight-level increase prior conviction, only four levels felony." Sentencing Commission, Manual 2L1.2 (Nov.2005) (hereinafter USSG); id., comment., n. 3 (adopting definition felony). B Although petitioner Lopez entered illegally 1986, 1990 he became legal permanent resident. In 1997, was arrested charges South Dakota, pleaded guilty aiding abetting another person's possession cocaine, sentenced five years' imprisonment. See S.D. Codified Laws 22-2-5 (1988); 22-6-1 (Supp.1997); 22-3-3 (1988). He released good after 15 months. After his release, Naturalization Service (INS)[1] began proceedings against Lopez, grounds: violation, see 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), also felony, 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). conceded contested determination, which would disqualify him from discretionary cancellation removal. At first, Judge agreed with because proscribed (CSA). But Board Appeals (BIA) switched position issue, same judge ruled Lopez's all, owing being law. Matter Yanez-Garcia, 23 I. N. Dec. 390, 2002 WL 993589 (2002) (announcing BIA decisions conform applicable Circuit law); Briones-Mata, 116 F.3d 308 (C.A.8 1997) (per curiam) (holding offenses are felonies). That ineligible removal, ordered *629 removed. affirmed, affirmed BIA, 417 934 2005).[2] granted certiorari resolve conflict Circuits about proper understanding treated convicted defendant committing it, CSA.[3] 547 1054, 126 1651, 164 L. Ed. 2d 395 (2006). now reverse. II makes if been including," limited to, "a helping someone else possess cocaine equivalent possessing drug, 22-3-3, 22-42-5. Mere not, however, CSA, 21 844(a), although more what one have himself will support intent distribute, 841 (2000 ed. Supp. III); Kates, 174 580, 582 (C.A.5 1999) ("Intent distribute may be inferred quantity drugs too large used alone"). Despite treatment, Government argues possession's felonious character can turn into INA. There, says, illicit includes 18. (21 801 et seq.)," 924(c)(2), CSA punishes possession, albeit misdemeanor, 844(a). enough, says Government, requires punishable, Hence, court satisfy element treats way. There few things wrong argument, first incoherence any commonsense conception trafficking," ultimately *630 defined. everyday "trafficking" should count lot here, play do define term, so remit us regular usage Congress probably meant. FDIC Meyer, 510 471, 476, 114 996, (1994). ordinarily means some sort commercial dealing. Black's Dictionary 1534 (8th ed.2004) (defining "traffic" "trade deal (goods, esp. contraband)"); Urena-Ramirez Ashcroft, 341 51, 57 (C.A.1 2003) (similar definition); Ezell, 321 S.C. 421, 425, 468 S.E.2d 679, 681 (App.1996) (same). Commerce, part Dakota possess, certainly simple equates crime. anomaly Government's reading cases: while typically felonies nontrafficking misdemeanors, several deviate significantly pattern.[4] Reading way, then, often trafficking, just English language tells expect, result very wary position. Cf. Leocal 543 1, 11, 125 377, 160 271 (2004) ("[W]e cannot forget we determining meaning `crime violence'"). Which deny might still right; Humpty Dumpty word mean "`just [he chose] meanneither nor less,'"[5] legislatures, too, free unorthodox. unexpected need tell so, there reasons think doing such thing here.[6] First, necessarily counts 924(c), is, [CSA]," want know qualify, place go definitions crimes CSA; where naturally look? look *631 suspect had meant found much less misleading way make point. Indeed, parts 924 expressly refer guilt 924(g)(3), (k)(2), implication confirms reference solely [CSA]" Act. Russello States, 464 16, 23, 104 296, 78 17 (1983) ("[W]here particular statute omits Act, generally presumed acts intentionally purposely disparate inclusion exclusion" (alteration original; internal quotation marks omitted)). Unless count. stresses text read "punishable felony," saying simply "punishable" door open counting felonies, long they at all CSA. normally speak write use like when signal allow break between noun "felony" contiguous modifier let alone said Regular points direction, Act," instinctively understand Act."[7] Without further explanation, using cover even trickery, violating cardinal rule statutory must context." General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc. Cline, 540 581, 596, 124 1236, 157 1094 (internal brackets omitted). why our interpretive regime reads whole sections together fix them, last approach divorce next without extraordinary reason. thinks enough reason that, provision already mentioned, "applies law." before given expansive sense ask short wrenching expectations normal usage, fact perfectly straightforward jobs do: generic description "an offense... paragraph," specifically couched one, covers whose elements include Thus, actually fell within *632 regardless existence counterpart; grams base 844(a).[8] reliance 1101(a)(43) misplaced second tries justify unusual code basis single nothing suggests changed took incorporated 8's Yet admits never begun prosecution 924(c)(1)(A) underlying misdemeanor. Tr. Oral Arg. 33-36. This telling: failure eager act interpretation context appears Code belies claim natural one.[9] Finally, render alien 1229b(a)(3), illegal entry country, USSG 2L1.2, dependent varying classifications apparently pegged itself chose. It remarkable consequences vary according severity classification describes terms, express case substance"). passing strange intend odds specific example (like crime"). imagine trouble incorporate own scheme *633 misdemeanors courts ignore whenever chose punish heavily. Two examples show untoward approach. Consider marijuana. Not excludes involving one's 30 less" violations grounds deportation, 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). lights, gram marijuana congressional judgment supplanted, subject mandatory deportation 1229b(a)(3).[10] hint statute's courting state-by-state disparity. situation reverse flouts probability much. Possessing If drew misdemeanor-felony line six plus, reading, convicting jurisdiction dispositive. Brief Respondent 48. Again, plausible authorize overrule refers. True, argument one-sided. out graduate depending quantity, whereas whatever amount (but leaves charge large). quantities escape designation substantial amount. weigh heavily anomalies mentioned side. knows resort implicate disuniformity classifications, supplant constructed them. sum, constitutes proscribes reversed, remanded consistent opinion. ordered. THOMAS, dissenting. holds constitute *634 classify respectfully dissent. "[a]ny who time admission deportable." As relevant case, 'drug crime' qualifies plain elements: felony; second, capable punishment No disputes 22-42-5 Likewise, therefore satisfies both elements, inquiry end there. Court, takes reasoning qualify crimes. According contains implied limitation: [as the" interpretation. Most obviously, "as nowhere doubt, could written limitation, did Furthermore, suggested addition conflicts clear extends felonies. Specifically, broadly encompasses punished (emphasis added). "Read naturally, `any' ." Gonzales, 520 117 1032, 137 132 (1997); Small 544 385, 397, 1752, 161 651 (2005) (THOMAS, J., dissenting) ("The broad `any court' unambiguously judicial bodies impose requisite ..." (footnote 18, classifies death greater year 3559(a). "[A]ny felonies: depends authorized Accordingly, terms prohibited finds provisions placed limits types consideration. particular, firearm "during relation crime... prosecuted (Emphasis 924(c)(5) ed., Supp.V) (using identical proscribing "armor piercing ammunition"). previously interpreted limit *635 supra, 2195. language, therefore, jurisdictional carving subset making those 924(c)(5). similar federal-crime limitation Interpreting crime," superfluous limitations these provisions. Duncan Walker, 533 167, 174, 121 2120, 150 251 (2001) (counseling interpretations surplus language).[1] INA, lists crime[s]" considers "whether law... (penultimate sentence). incorporating 924(c)(2)'s supports conclusion Moreover, isolates prosecuting jurisdiction. Section 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) upon requirement issuing determines sense. When faced actual ask, hypothetically, different hypothetical cause significant inconsistencies. For instance, convicts crime, arise relying jurisdiction's Court's unpersuasive. outset analysis, avers ordinary term." Ante, 630. statement incorrect. 1101(a)(43)(B) clearly substance," least part, added.) Therefore, mean, anything Rather grappling instead sets up conflicting straw man definition. majority states involves "some dealing." Because mere dealing, concludes offenseor, implication, crime." *636 offenses. 844(a) (possession base, flunitrazepam, repeat offenses). recognizes, light umbrella reject hand. downplays "few exceptions" footnotes, concluding "this coerced offenses" gives "override [the] meaning" trafficking." 630, nn. 4 6. inconsistency deserves reference. By encompassing offenses, far few" outside meaning. every type offender previous offense. entire range unlawful provide "clear command override meaning," ante, 6, would.[2] fleeting consideration itself. referencing under" asks "where look" determine response rhetorical question, suggest presented expect committed Continuing avoid focuses say. referenced 924(g)(3) (k)(2). Ibid. response, course, well CSA." Rejoining, resorts "instinctiv[e] understand[ing]" "`felony Act.'" Instinct notwithstanding, interpret wrote, written. "instinct" by" creates unnecessary ambiguity "felony." classified 802(13).[3] interpretation, *637 seemingly apply. resolves creates: explains something CSA's 631, 7. explanation best, unsatisfying. gliding past text, expresses concern over allows classifications. share explicitly State's imprisonment, uniform classification. 1101(a)(43)(F), (G), (J), (P)-(T). Even variance "not remarkable." 632. real little variations Rather, worries [may be] provision." But, 1101(a)(43), then shown Part I, though, "felony," notes apparent asserts though 632-633. reality. Only authorizes imprisonment 20 grams. Fla. 893.13(6)(a)-(b), 775.082(3)(d) others ounce (or 28.3 grams) See, e.g., Nev.Rev.Stat. 453.336(1)-(2) (2004), 453.336(4), 193.130 (2003). possibility fall small gap lead ground depart fact, effect substances distribute. frequently treat disparity treatment convictions amounts drugs. difficult "authorize judgment" 633. *638 becomes based prosecution. anomalous, inconsistent, considered III ambiguities created today's opinion, NOTES [1] INS's immigration-enforcement functions handled Bureau Customs Enforcement Homeland Security. Clark Martinez, 371, 374, 716, 734 (2005). [2] deported agree parties moot. benefit relief pursuing application refused consider [3] Compare Wilson, 316 506 (C.A.4 (state-law felony); Simon, 168 1271 (C.A.11 (same); Hinojosa-Lopez, 130 691 Cabrera-Sosa, 81 998 (C.A.10 1996) Restrepo-Aguilar, 74 361 (same), Gonzales-Gomez Achim, 441 532 (C.A.7 2006) Palacios-Suarez, 418 692 (C.A.6 2005) Gerbier Holmes, 280 297 (C.A.3 2002) construed context. Ibarra-Galindo, 206 1337 (C.A.9 2000) (in state-law Pornes-Garcia, 171 142 (C.A.2 Cazarez-Gutierrez 382 905 2004) Aguirre INS, 79 315 [4] Several (2005 Supp.); Tex. Health Safety Ann. 481.115 (West 2003); Penal 12.32-12.35 10, infra. contrast, exceptions, (that year's less, cf. 3559(a)), (providing 1 year" except offenders, persons flunitrazepam), III). [5] Carroll, Wonderland Through Looking Glass 198 (Messner 1982). [6] Of acknowledge counterintuitively Those correspond three enumerated recidivist their counterparts substance" speech. call [7] With respect possibility, purposes "felonies" assigns exceeding wisely concedes, 25, standing 802(13), apply here: refers [8] codify BIA's decision Barrett, 171, 385754 (1990), H.R.Rep. 101-681, pt. p. 147 U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News, 6472 (noting reflects approval Barrett), enquiry looking beyond Congress's evident acceptance Barrett. held "`drug crime'" "crimes analogous Dec., 177, 178, specifying "analogous" opposed [9] Contrary oral possible proffered "may States," 924(c)(1)(A), level. reason, dissent's renders States" misses mark. Post, 634 (opinion J.). preferred require "capable post, 634, court. [10] (punishing (2003) ounce, grams, N.D. Cent. 19-03.1-23(6) (Lexis 2005), 12.1-32-01(4) Ore.Rev.Stat. 161.605(3) (2003), Relating Substances, 33, 2005 Ore. 2006 mistakenly contends my superfluous. 633, 9. stated, categories felonies federal. limiting meaning, exclude categories. category Consequently, 924(c)(1)(A). discussion "trafficking," trip "through glass." "Commerce," "certainly ...." ago, opposite true interpreting scope Congress' power Commerce Clause. Gonzales Raich, 545 22, 2195, 162 (concluding regulate affecting "commerce"). trap purports identify today "turn[ing] [commerce], expect." 630; 57-58, 2195 dissenting). broadening Clause stands tension present narrow alters Courts looked construing 506, 512 2003). prevail concession sense: resides most construe title. supra. discussed above,

Category: 1