Opinion ID: 151635
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Bankoff's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment

Text: In April 2007, a federal grand jury returned a three-count indictment charging Bankoff with threatening employees of the SSA, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 115. Section 115 provides in pertinent part: Whoever ... threatens to assault, kidnap, or murder, a United States official, a United States judge, a Federal law enforcement officer, or an official whose killing would be a crime under [18 U.S.C. § 1114], with intent to impede, intimidate, or interfere with such official, judge, or law enforcement officer while engaged in the performance of official duties, or with intent to retaliate against such official, judge, or law enforcement officer on account of the performance of official duties, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1) (emphasis added). Bankoff moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that his alleged victims Sphabmixy, Tonik, and Robinsondid not qualify as official[s] whose killing would be a crime under § 1114. 18 U.S.C. § 115. Relying on United States v. Fenton, 10 F.Supp.2d 501 (W.D.Pa.1998)the single reported decision by a federal court that addresses the meaning of the term official in § 115Bankoff argued that § 115 does not incorporate all persons protected by § 1114, but only officer[s]. See id. at 503 n. 2 (reasoning that the terms official and officer are closely related and ... can only be construed to have the same meaning). [2] Accordingly, Bankoff argued that § 115 does not apply to threats made against employees like Sphabmixy, Tonik, and Robinson. The District Court disagreed, concluding that the plain language of §§ 115 and 1114, taken as a whole, indicates that `official' encompasses [an] `officer or employee.' It stated, however, that its conclusion regarding the definition of official was only preliminary, and it invited Bankoff to raise the issue again at trial. The Court thus denied Bankoff's motion.