Source: https://openjurist.org/539/us/69/nguyen-v-united-states
Timestamp: 2020-01-23 01:40:31
Document Index: 650573830

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 292', '§ 292', '§ 292', '§ 2111', '§ 46', '§ 46', '§ 292', '§ 22', '§ 1424', '§ 3', '§ 22', '§ 1294', '§ 1821', '§ 1821', '§ 22', '§ 1', '§ 604', '§ 11', '§ 1', '§ 1', 'Art. 6', '§ 5', '§ 1', '§ 6', '§ 3', '§ 2', '§ 3', '§ 292', '§ 292', '§ 46', '§ 46', '§ 117', '§ 46']

539 U.S. 69 - Nguyen v. United States
539 U.S. 69
The Government agrees these statutory provisions are best read together as not permitting the Chief Judge of the Northern Mariana Islands to sit by designation on the Ninth Circuit. The Government maintains, however, that the erroneous designation in these cases was not plainly impermissible because Title 28 does not expressly forbid it or explicitly define the term "district judge" separately from the term "district court." This contention requires an excessively strained interpretation of the statute. To be sure, a literal reading of the words "district judges" in isolation from the rest of the statute might arguably justify assigning the Chief Judge of the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands for service on the Court of Appeals, for he is called a "district judge" of a court "within the [Ninth] [C]ircuit." But a literal reading of that sort is so capacious that it would also justify the designation of "district judges" of any number of state courts "within" the Ninth Circuit.8 The statute cannot plausibly be interpreted to authorize the improper panel assignment in these cases.
Moreover, we do not read the designation statute without regard for the "historic significance" of the term "United States District Court" used in Title 28. Mookini v. United States, 303 U. S. 201, 205 (1938). "[W]ithout an addition expressing a wider connotation," that term ordinarily excludes Article IV territorial courts, even when their jurisdiction is similar to that of a United States District Court created under Article III. Ibid. See also Summers v. United States, 231 U. S. 92, 101-102 (1913) ("[T]he courts of the Territories may have such jurisdiction of cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States as is vested in the circuit and district courts, but this does not make them circuit and district courts of the United States"); Stephens v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U. S. 445, 476-477 (1899) ("It must be admitted that the words `United States District Court' were not accurately used . . . [to refer to] the United States Court in the Indian Territory"). Construing the relevant statutory provisions together with further aid from historical usage, it is evident that Congress did not contemplate the judges of the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands to be "district judges" within the meaning of § 292(a). It necessarily follows that the appointment of one member of the panel deciding petitioners' appeals was unauthorized.9
By contrast, we have agreed to correct, at least on direct review, violations of a statutory provision that "embodies a strong policy concerning the proper administration of judicial business" even though the defect was not raised in a timely manner. Glidden, 370 U. S., at 536 (plurality opinion). In American Constr. Co. v. Jacksonville, T. & K. W. R. Co., 148 U. S. 372 (1893), the case Justice Harlan cited for this proposition in Glidden, a judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals was challenged because one member of that court had been prohibited by statute from taking part in the hearing and decision of the appeal.10 This Court succinctly observed: "If the statute made him incompetent to sit at the hearing, the decree in which he took part was unlawful, and perhaps absolutely void, and should certainly be set aside or quashed by any court having authority to review it by appeal, error or certiorari." 148 U. S., at 387. The American Constr. Co. rule was again applied in William Cramp & Sons Ship & Engine Building Co. v. International Curtiss Marine Turbine Co., 228 U. S. 645 (1913), even though the parties had consented in the Circuit Court of Appeals to the participation of a District Judge who was not permitted by statute to consider the appeal. Id., at 650. Rather than sift through the underlying merits, we remanded to the Circuit Court of Appeals "so that the case may be heard by a competent court, [organized] conformably to the requirements of the statute." Id., at 651. See also Moran v. Dillingham, 174 U. S. 153, 158 (1899) ("[T]his court, without considering whether that decree was or was not erroneous in other respects, orders the Decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals to be set aside and quashed, and the case remanded to that court to be there heard and determined according to law by a bench of competent judges" (emphasis deleted)).
We are confronted in petitioners' cases with a question of judicial authority more fundamental than whether "some effort has been made to conform with the formal conditions on which [a judge's] particular powers depend." Johnson v. Manhattan R. Co., 61 F. 2d 934, 938 (CA2 1932) (L. Hand, J.). The difference between the irregular judicial designations in McDowell and Ball and the impermissible panel designation in the instant cases is therefore the difference between an action which could have been taken, if properly pursued, and one which could never have been taken at all. Like the statutes in William Cramp & Sons, Moran, and American Constr. Co., § 292(a) embodies weighty congressional policy concerning the proper organization of the federal courts.11 Section 292(a) does not permit any assignment to service on the courts of appeals of a district judge who does not enjoy the protections set forth in Article III. Congress' decision to preserve the Article III character of the courts of appeals is more than a trivial concern, cf. Northern Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U. S. 50, 57-60 (1982) (plurality opinion), and is entitled to respect. The Chief Judge of the Northern Mariana Islands did not purport to have "all the powers attached to" the position of an Article III judge, McDowell, 159 U. S., at 601, nor was the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit otherwise permitted by § 292(a) to designate him for service on an Article III court. Accordingly, his participation contravened the statutory requirements set by Congress for the composition of the federal courts of appeals.
For essentially the same reasons, we think it inappropriate to accept the Government's invitation to assess the merits of petitioners' convictions or whether the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings were impaired by the composition of the panel. It is true, as the Government observes, that a failure to object to trial error ordinarily limits an appellate court to review for plain error. See 28 U. S. C. § 2111; Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 52(b). But to ignore the violation of the designation statute in these cases would incorrectly suggest that some action (or inaction) on petitioners' part could create authority Congress has quite carefully withheld. Even if the parties had expressly stipulated to the participation of a non-Article III judge in the consideration of their appeals, no matter how distinguished and well qualified the judge might be, such a stipulation would not have cured the plain defect in the composition of the panel.12 See William Cramp & Sons, 228 U. S., at 650.
Second, the statutory authority for courts of appeals to sit in panels, 28 U. S. C. § 46(b), requires the inclusion of at least three judges in the first instance.16 As the Second Circuit has noted, Congress apparently enacted § 46(b) in part "to curtail the prior practice under which some circuits were routinely assigning some cases to two-judge panels." Murray v. National Broadcasting Co., 35 F. 3d 45, 47 (1994). It is "clear that the statute was not intended to preclude disposition by a panel of two judges in the event that one member of a three-judge panel to which the appeal is assigned becomes unable to participate," ibid., but it is less clear whether the quorum statute offers postjudgment absolution for the participation of a judge who was not otherwise competent to be part of the panel under § 292(a). Thus, although the two Article III judges who took part in the decision of petitioners' appeals would have constituted a quorum if the original panel had been properly created, it is at least highly doubtful whether they had any authority to serve by themselves as a panel. In light of that doubt, it is appropriate to return these cases to the Ninth Circuit for fresh consideration of petitioners' appeals by a properly constituted panel organized "comformably to the requirements of the statute."17 William Cramp & Sons, 228 U. S., at 651.
Together with No. 02-5034,Phan v. United States, also on certiorari to the same court.
&#x2020; Gordon Rhea filed a brief for Thomas K. Moore as amicus curiae urging affirmance.
See Treaty of Paris, Art. II, 30 Stat. 1755 (1899)
64 Stat. 384. See generally A. Leibowitz, Defining Status: A Comprehensive Analysis of United States Territorial Relations 313, 323 (1989)
See Organic Act of Guam § 22, 64 Stat. 389, 48 U. S. C. § 1424."The `District Court of Guam' rather than `United States District Court of Guam' was chosen as the court's title, since it was created under Art. IV, § 3, of the Federal Constitution rather than under Art. III, and since § 22 vested the court with original jurisdiction to decide both local and federal-question matters."Guam v. Olsen, 431 U. S. 195, 196-197, n. 1 (1977) (citing S. Rep. No. 2109, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., 12 (1950)). The Guam Legislature was authorized as well to create local courts and transfer to them jurisdiction over certain cases that otherwise could be heard by the District Court of Guam. See Olsen, 431 U. S., at 200-201 (citing Agana Bay Dev. Co. (Hong Kong) Ltd. v. Supreme Court of Guam, 529 F. 2d 952, 959 (CA9 1976) (Kennedy, J., dissenting)).
Title 28 U. S. C. § 1294(4) provides:
"The District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands shall have the jurisdiction of a District Court of the United States, including, but not limited to, the diversity jurisdiction provided for in section 1332 of title 28 and that of a bankruptcy court of the United States
48 U. S. C. § 1821(b)(1)
The District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands is instead established in Chapter 17 of Title 48 ("Territories and Insular Possessions"). See § 1821
Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and Washington are all States within the Ninth Circuit whose judiciaries include "district judges." See Alaska Stat. §§ 22.15.010, 22.15.020, 22.20.010 (2002); Haw. Const., Art. VI, § 1; Haw. Rev. Stat. § 604-1 (1993); Idaho Const., Art. V, § 11; Idaho Code § 1-701 (1948-1998); Mont. Const., Art. VII, §§ 1, 4, 6; Nev. Const., Art. 6, §§ 5-6; Nev. Rev. Stat. § 1.010 (1995); Wash. Const., Art. IV, § 6 (West Supp. 2003); Wash. Rev. Code §§ 3.30.015, 3.30.030, 3.34.010, 3.66.010 (1988 and West Supp. 2003)
Petitioners contend that the participation of an Article IV judge on the panel violated structural constitutional guarantees embodied in Article III and in the Appointments Clause, Art. II, § 2, cl. 2, of the Constitution. We find it unnecessary to discuss the constitutional questions because the statutory violation is clear
The petitioners inAmerican Constr. Co. challenged the participation of a Circuit Judge who, while sitting as a trial judge, had entered an order closely related to the matter under review in the Circuit Court of Appeals. At the time, the relevant statute governing the composition of the circuit courts of appeals provided that "no justice or judge before whom a cause or question may have been tried or heard in a district court, or existing circuit court, shall sit on the trial or hearing of such cause or question in the circuit court of appeals." Evarts Act, ch. 517, § 3, 26 Stat. 827.
The Government seeks to distinguishWilliam Cramp & Sons, Moran, and American Constr. Co. on the ground that the statutory provision at issue in each of those cases, unlike § 292(a), "expressly prohibited" the challenged judge's participation. Brief for United States 18. In light of our conclusion that there is no plausible interpretation of § 292(a) permitting the designation in the instant cases, see supra, at 74-76, we think this is a distinction without a difference. In any event, there was no "express" prohibition at play in United States v. American-Foreign S. S. Corp., 363 U. S. 685, 690-691 (1960), in which this Court vacated the judgment of a Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, because a Senior Circuit Judge who had participated in the decision was not authorized by statute to do so. See also id., at 691 (Harlan, J., dissenting) ("The statute need hardly be read, as the Court now holds it should be, as saying that a case in an en banc court shall be `heard and determined' by the active circuit judges").
We agree with the Government's submission that the improper composition of the court below was "an isolated, one-time mistake." Brief for United States 5. Countervailing concerns for gamesmanship, which animate the requirement for contemporaneous objection, therefore dissipate in these cases in light of the rarity of the improper panel assignment at issue
"The authority which Congress has granted this Court to review judgments of the courts of appeals undoubtedly vests us not only with the authority to correct errors of substantive law, but to prescribe the method by which those courts go about deciding the cases before them."Lehman Brothers v. Schein, 416 U. S. 386, 393 (1974) (REHNQUIST, J., concurring).
Title 28 U. S. C. § 46(d) provides: "A majority of the number of judges authorized to constitute a court or panel thereof... shall constitute a quorum." As used in § 46(d), "quorum.. . means such a number of the members of the court as may legally transact judicial business." Tobin v. Ramey, 206 F. 2d 505, 507 (CA5 1953).
See Act of Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 6, § 117, 36 Stat. 1131:
"There shall be in each circuit a circuit court of appeals, which shall consist of three judges, of whom two shall constitute a quorum . . . ."
Title 28 U. S. C. § 46(b) provides, in pertinent part: "In each circuit the court may authorize the hearing and determination of cases and controversies by separate panels, each consisting of three judges, at least a majority of whom shall be judges of that court, unless such judges cannot sit because recused or disqualified . . . ."
Unlike the dissent, we believe that itwould "flou[t] the stated will of Congress," post, at 84 (opinion of REHNQUIST, C. J.), and call into serious question the integrity as well as the public reputation of judicial proceedings to permit the decision below to stand, for no one other than a properly constituted panel of Article III judges was empowered to exercise appellate jurisdiction in these cases.
Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b), courts have "a limited power to correct errors that were forfeited because [they were] not timely raised" below. United States v. Olano, 507 U. S. 725, 731 (1993) (emphasis added). Even when an error has occurred that is "`plain'" and "`affect[s] substantial rights,'" id., at 732, "`an appellate court may . . . exercise its discretion to notice a forfeited error... only if ... the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings,'" United States v. Cotton, 535 U. S. 625, 631-632 (2002) (quoting Johnson v. United States, 520 U. S. 461, 467 (1997)) (emphasis added). By ignoring this well-established limitation of our remedial authority, the Court flouts the stated will of Congress and almost 70 years of our own precedent.
Petitioners knew of the composition of the panel of the Court of Appeals more than a week before the case was orally argued. App. 7, 9-12. They made no objection then or later in that court, preferring to wait until the panel had decided against them on the merits to raise it. The Court first concedes, as it must, that a failure to object to error limits an appellate court to review for plain error. Ante, at 80. But the Court then completely ignores the fact that "the authority created by Rule 52(b) is circumscribed." Olano, supra, at 732. Indeed, the opinion fails to cite, much less apply, Olano or our other recent cases reaffirming that "we exercise our power under Rule 52(b) sparingly," Jones v. United States, 527 U. S. 373, 389 (1999), and only "`in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result,'" Olano, supra, at 736 (quoting United States v. Young, 470 U. S. 1, 15 (1985)).
This mandatory inquiry confirms that no "miscarriage of justice" would result if petitioners' convictions were affirmed. Petitioners make no claim that Chief Judge Munson was biased or incompetent. His character and abilities as a jurist, peculiarly experienced in adjudicating matters arising within the United States Territories, stand unimpeached. It is therefore difficult to understand how fairness or the public reputation of the judicial process is advanced by allowing criminal defendants, whose convictions are supported by "`overwhelming'" evidence, Cotton, supra, at 633, 634, and whose arguments on appeal were meritless, to consume the public resources necessary for a second appellate review.*
American-Foreign does not speak to the situation here because the petitioner in that case did not forfeit the error. Forfeiture is "`the failure to make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it.'" Johnson, 520 U. S., at 465 (quoting Olano, 507 U. S., at 731). The petitioner in American-Foreign did not so fail. Rather, it objected at the earliest possible moment: immediately after the Court of Appeals issued an en banc decision that Judge Medina joined. It did not know that Judge Medina would retire or then participate in the en banc decision until after the case was briefed and submitted; it availed itself of the earliest opportunity to object to this error by filing a motion for further rehearing en banc. Petitioner did not forfeit the error, so Rule 52(b) did not apply.
The Court also relies mistakenly on William Cramp & Sons Ship & Engine Building Co. v. International Curtiss Marine Turbine Co., 228 U. S. 645 (1913), and American Constr. Co. v. Jacksonville, T. & K. W. R. Co., 148 U. S. 372 (1893). Ante, at 78-79, and n. 11. In both cases, this Court considered an Act of Congress providing that "`no judge before whom a cause or question may have been tried or heard in a district court . . . shall sit on the trial or hearing of such cause or question in the Circuit Court of Appeals.'" 228 U. S., at 649; 148 U. S., at 387. This Court held that, when a district judge sat in contravention of that "comprehensive and inflexible" prohibition, 228 U. S., at 650, the court of appeals was statutorily unable to act. See also American Construction, supra, at 387.
But these cases do not control here because, as the Court fails to note, both cases predate our adoption of the standard for plain-error review in Atkinson in 1936, and Congress' codification of that standard in Rule 52(b) in 1944. This, and not some broader principle, explains the Court's failure in those cases to apply our modern plain-error analysis. The Court has no such excuse. The cases can also easily be distinguished from this litigation on the facts: They held only that courts constituted "in violation of the express prohibitions of [a] statute" lack the authority to act. Cramp, 228 U. S., at 650 (emphasis added). In contrast, the Ninth Circuit panel in this litigation did not run afoul of any "comprehensive and inflexible" statutory "prohibition." Ibid. Rather, the error must be deduced by negative implication, from a series of statutes that describe the proper use of district judges in panels of the Courts of Appeals. See ante, at 75-76.
Petitioners' second constitutional claim, like their statutory one, is subject to plain-error review. "No procedural principle is more familiar to this Court than that a constitutional right may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by the failure to make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it." Yakus v. United States, 321 U. S. 414, 444 (1944); Johnson, 520 U. S., at 465. See also Cotton, 535 U. S., at 631-633 (applying plain-error review to a claimed violation of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466 (2000)); Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U. S. 211, 231 (1995) ("[T]he proposition that legal defenses based upon doctrines central to the courts' structural independence can never be waived simply does not accord with our cases"); Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Schor, 478 U. S. 833, 848-849 (1986) ("[A]s a personal right, Article III's guarantee of an impartial and independent federal adjudication is subject to waiver, just as are other personal constitutional rights that dictate the procedures by which civil and criminal matters must be tried").
Drug enforcement agents seized 443.8 grams of methamphetamine in a package that was mailed to Phan and opened in Nguyen's apartment. 284 F. 3d 1086, 1087-1088 (CA9 2002). In that apartment, agents also discovered drug paraphernalia, "nearly a hundred little plastic zip lock bags," and $6,000 in cashId., at 1088, 1091.
All three members of the Ninth Circuit panel agreed that petitioners' challenges—that the District Court abused its discretion in admitting certain evidence, and that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions—lacked merit. Judge Goodwin, writing for the court, explained that petitioners' evidentiary challenges were "overstate[d]," and that the District Court "clearly performed the necessary" analysis. Id., at 1090. With respect to petitioners' sufficiency of the evidence argument, the judges were also unanimous "[t]here was plenty of evidence," id., at 1091, and "abundant facts," id., at 1090, in support of petitioners' convictions.