Document: 435 U.S. 371 98 S.Ct. 1112 55 L.Ed.2d 349 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Donald Lavern CULBERT. No. 77-142. Argued Jan. 11, 1978. Decided March 28, Syllabus Respondent was convicted under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, of attempting to obtain money from a federally insured bank by means threats violence its president. The Court Appeals reversed, holding that Government had failed prove respondent's conduct constituted "racketeering," which in view necessary element Act offense. Held: plain language and legislative history statute make clear Congress did not intend limit statute's scope reference an undefined category termed but rather intended reach all within express terms statute. Pp. 373-380. 548 F.2d 1355, reversed. Sara S. Beale, Ann Arbor, Mich., for petitioner. James F. Hewitt, San Francisco, respondent. Mr. Justice MARSHALL delivered opinion Court. 1 violating 1951 (1976 ed.), provides relevant part: 2 "Whoever any way or degree obstructs, delays, affects commerce movement article commodity commerce, robbery extortion attempts conspires so do, commits threatens physical person property furtherance plan purpose do anything violation this section shall be fined more than $10,000 imprisoned twenty years, both." (a). 3 question case is whether only establish respondent violated also his "racketeering." 4 evidence at jury trial showed he accomplice attempted $100,000 made bank's United States Ninth Circuit, with one judge dissenting, reversed conviction,1 that, " 'although activity may literal it must constitute 'racketeering" perimeters Act.' 1357, quoting v. Yokley, 542 300, 304 (CA6 1976). We granted certiorari, 434 816, 53, 54 71 (1977),2 we now reverse. 5 * Nothing on face suggests congressional intent coverage persons who have engaged To contrary, statutory sweeps "in . affect[ed] extortion." 1951(a) ed.). These words lend themselves restrictive interpretation; as recognized, they "manifest use constitutional power has punish interference interstate extortion, violence," Stirone States, 361 212, 215, 80 270, 272, L.Ed. 252 (1960). statute, moreover, carefully defines key terms, such "robbery," "extortion," "commerce."3 Hence absence "racketeering"—much less definition word—is strong "racketeering" violation. 6 nevertheless argues should read racketeering requirement into so, however, might create serious problems, Neither nor either two Courts even provide definition. Without definition, well violate "the first essential due process law": It would forbid doing act vague [persons] common intelligence [would] necessarily [have to] guess meaning differ application." Connally General Constr. Co., 269 385, 391, 46 126, 127, 70 322 (1926); see, e. g., Hynes Mayor Oradell, 425 610, 620, 96 1755, 1760, 48 243 (1976). But need concern ourselves these potential difficulties because construction avoids them virtually compelled structure II A. 7 supports interpretation adopted Appeals.4 predecessor Anti-Racketeering 1934, ch. 569, Stat. 979, enacted, name implies, time when very concerned about activities. Despite concer s, written broad similar nowhere mentioned racketeering.5 This term surprising, since principal committee working known Copeland Committee, found associated word "racket" "for some been used loosely designate every conceivable sort practice questionable, unmoral, fraudulent, disliked, criminal not." S.Rep.No.1189, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., (1937).6 8 Committee proceeded develop own "working definition" racketeering, incorporate Act. Ibid. Critical existence "an organized conspiracy commit crimes coercion." Id., 3. Yet itself require engage unlawful conduct, Senate Judiciary Report expressly stated established 'whether restraints [of commerce] are form conspiracies not,' S.Rep.No.532, 73d 2d (1934), Department memorandum; see H.R.Rep.No.1833, (1934). Moreover, included separate prohibition conspiracies, 2(d), 980; n. 5, supra, superfluous if proof racketeering—as defined conspiracy—were integral substantive offenses.7 There nothing dispell conclusion bservations. simply separate, unstated B 9 Given Act's predecessor, proved derived history. While enacted correct perceived deficiency racketeering. See Enmons, 410 396, 401-404, 93 1007, 1010-1011, 35 379 (1973). Rather, involved latter proscribed "force, coercion" lead exaction "valuable consideration" exclusion wage payments consideration. supra. In construing wage-payments exclusion, held cover actions union truckdrivers exacted out-of-town drivers return undesired often unutilized services. Teamsters, 315 521, 62 642, 86 1004 (1942). Shortly thereafter, several bills were introduced alter result. U.S., 402, 8, 1010. 10 bill eventually became deleted exception relied Teamsters substituted specific prohibitions against relating force force. primary focus debates designed attack labor. Opponents argued prosecute strikers interfere labor unions. See, 91 Cong.Rec. 11848 (1945) (remarks Rep. Lane); ibid. Powell); id., 11902 Celler). proponents steadfastly maintained prohibit perpetrated anyone. 11900 Hancock); 11904 Gwynne); 11912 Hobbs); 11914 Russell). Although there many references "racketeers" 11906 Robinson); 11908 Vursell); 11910 Andersen), none comments punishable falling language. fully consistent statement House "to prevent anyone obstructing, delaying, affecting bill." H.R.Rep.No.238, 79th (emphasis added); S.Rep.No.1516, (1946).8 11 Indeed, Congressmen praised set out precision being criminal. As Representative noted, "have construed thousand times courts. Everybody knows what mean." (1945). Robsion); Springer); wake Court's decision paramount prohibited: 12 "We explicit. That too general, thought better explicit, leave imagination court." Hancock). 13 id. Hobbs). 14 inconceivable same clearly defining acts prohibited racketeering—a statute—a prerequisite liability Act.9 III 15 therefore conclude position no support invokes, court below, maxims construction, neither applicable here. true "ambiguity concerning ambit statutes resolved favor lenity," Rewis 401 808, 812, 1056, 1059, 28 493 (1971), "unless conveys clearly, will deemed significantly changed federal-state balance," Bass, 404 336, 349, 92 515, 523, 30 488 (1971). here conveyed decline manufacture ambiguity where exists. apply "when uncertain meaning"; "not 'in complete disregard legislature.' Scarborough 431 563, 577, 97 1963, 1970, 52 582 (1977), Bramblett, 348 503, 510, 75 504, 508, 99 594 (1955). 16 With regard disturbing balance, define federal crime knew state law. replete statements already statutes. Gwynne). Those opposed grave rights States. 11903 Welch); 11913 Resa). apparently believed, effectively prosecuting Federal obligation so. 11911 Jennings); 11904, 11920 G ynne). 17 Our examination impels us invitation judgment is, accordingly, Reversed. 19 BRENNAN took part consideration case. robbery, 2113(a) Appeals, confessed error ground unless taking "from presence another." Since delivery president parking lot contemplate entry president, conceded conviction vacated. 1356-1357. brief Court, notes Attorney's concession approved Solicitor does represent question." Brief 33 19. validity 2113(a). conflict Circuits issue. Compare Culbert, 1355 (CA9 1977) (case below), 300 1976), Frazier, 560 884, 886 (CA8 1977), cert. pending, 77-847; Warledo, 557 721, 730 (CA10 1977); Brecht, 540 45, (CA2 Title 1951(b) ed.) provides: "As section— "(1) 'robbery' obtaining personal another, will, actual threatened force, violence, fear injury, immediate future, property, custody possession, relative member family company obtaining. "(2) 'extortion' consent, induced wrongful fear, color official right. "(3) 'commerce' District Columbia, Territory Possession States; between point State, Territory, Possession, Columbia outside thereof; points State through place State; other over jurisdiction." find clear, "[w]hen aid words, available, certainly can 'rule law' forbids use, however appear 'superficial examination.' American Trucking Assns., Inc., 310 534, 543-544, 60 1064, 84 1345 (1940) (footnotes omitted). Train Colorado Public Interest Research Group, 426 1, 10, 1938, 1942, (1976); Cass 417 72, 77-79, 94 2167, 2170-2171, 40 668 (1974). provided pertinent "Sec. 2. Any who, connection relation trade moving move commerce— "(a) Obtains obtain, attempt threat coercion, payment valuable considerations, purchase rental protective services, including, wages bona-fide employer employee: "(b) right; "(c) Commits Physical injury sections (a) (b); "(d) Conspires concertedly foregoing acts; shall, upon thereof, guilty felony punished imprisonment ten years fine $10,000, both. 'wrongful' laws Territory. 'property', 'money', 'valuable considerations' herein include paid employee." cited report issued 1937, "a picture" earlier work Committee. (1937). separately proscribes conspiracies. quoted, 371-372. indications turn additional One Congressman, enumerating colleagues exactly individual's bill, Another emphasized respect bill—one "was substantially carried forward [Hobbs] Act," 404-405, 14, 1012, (1973) "trying legal racketeering" proscribing onduct 89 3227 (1943) Vorys). note wanted offense, how Organized Crime Control Pub.L. 91-452, 922, "racketeering activity" specifically purposes 1961(1) violates certain "any indictable title 18, Code 1951"—the 1961(1)(B).

Category: 0