Opinion ID: 744140
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Plain Meaning of the Statutes

Text: 10 In ascertaining the plain meaning of [a] statute, the court must look to the particular statutory language at issue, as well as the language and design of the statute as a whole. K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291, 108 S.Ct. 1811, 1818, 100 L.Ed.2d 313 (1988). In interpreting statutes, we begin with the relevant language. Aulston v. United States, 915 F.2d 584, 589 (10th Cir.1990). Where the will of Congress has been expressed in reasonably plain terms, 'that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive.'  Griffin, 458 U.S. at 570, 102 S.Ct. at 3250 (quoting Consumer Prod. Safety Comm'n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S. 102, 108, 100 S.Ct. 2051, 2056, 64 L.Ed.2d 766 (1980)). 11 The relevant part of the 1909 Act states that [a]ny person ... shall ... upon making satisfactory proof of compliance with the laws under which such lands are claimed, receive a patent therefor, which shall contain a reservation to the United States of all coal in said lands, and the right to prospect for, mine, and remove the same. 30 U.S.C. § 81 (emphasis added) (hereinafter the 1909 Act). 4 The 1910 Act similarly states that a prospective homestead entrant's patent shall contain a reservation to the United States of all the coal in the lands so patented, together with the right to prospect for, mine, and remove the same. 30 U.S.C. § 85 (hereinafter the 1910 Act). 12 The Acts neither define coal nor mention CBM; thus, the statutes do not by their plain language indicate congressional intent regarding CBM. Even in the absence of a plain articulation, however, we have other means available to evaluate congressional intent. See generally INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 431-48, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 1212-22, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987). Following this circuit's traditional approach as developed in Northern Natural Gas Co. v. Grounds, 441 F.2d 704 (10th Cir.1971), and followed in Aulston, 915 F.2d at 589-599, we use traditional tools of statutory construction to investigate whether inclusion of CBM in the coal reservation was either specifically intended by Congress, or is consistent with Congress' general legislative purpose in enacting the 1909 and 1910 Acts.