Opinion ID: 520335
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Explicit Language of the Statutes

Text: 31 As noted earlier, Counts Two through Nine charge the defendants with violating 42 U.S.C. Secs. 2131, 2272 and 2273(a) by failing to submit plans and schedules for making the plant modifications required by Appendix R, and by failing to implement those modifications in accordance with the prescribed timetable. Although the alleged violations of the NRC regulations are critical to an understanding of the charges against the defendants, our search for explicit continuing offense language is limited to the statutes under which the defendants are charged. Under Toussie, we may not construe these offenses as continuing ones unless the statute itself, apart from the regulation[s] justifies that conclusion. 397 U.S. at 121, 90 S.Ct. at 863. 32 Section 2131 states in pertinent part that: 33 It shall be unlawful ... for any person within the United States to transfer or receive in interstate commerce, manufacture, produce, transfer, acquire, possess, use, import, or export any utilization or production facility except under and in accordance with a license issued by the [NRC].... 34 Section 2272, a criminal penalty provision, states that: 35 Whoever willfully violates, attempts to violate, or conspires to violate ... Section ... 2131 of this title ... shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both.... 36 Finally, section 2273(a), also a criminal penalty provision, states that: 37 Whoever willfully violates, attempts to violate, or conspires to violate, any provision of this chapter for which no criminal penalty is specifically provided or of any regulation or order prescribed or issued [by the NRC] ... shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than $5,000 or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or both.... 38 We find no explicit language in these statutory provisions which compels the conclusion that the crimes described or referenced therein are continuing offenses for limitations purposes. None of these provisions even mentions the statute of limitations, much less when the limitations period begins to run. By contrast, as the district court noted, Congress has provided in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3284 (1982), that concealment of a bankrupt's assets shall be deemed to be a continuing offense ... and the period of limitations shall not begin to run until such final discharge or denial of discharge. Similarly, the Foreign Agents Registration Act, 22 U.S.C. Sec. 618(e) (1982), provides that [f]ailure to file any such [foreign] registration statement or supplements thereto as is required by [this title] shall be considered a continuing offense for as long as such failure exists, notwithstanding any statute of limitation or other statute to the contrary. Since Congress has not included such explicit continuing offense language in the statutory provisions under which the defendants are charged, we conclude that the first prong of the Toussie test is not satisfied.