Opinion ID: 500657
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Is Sec. 955a(d)(1) limited to activities on vessels? (Count 2)

Text: 17 Appellant urges that his conviction on count 2 must be reversed because, although 21 U.S.C. Sec. 955a refers in its title to possession of controlled substances on board vessels, the Government offered no evidence that he possessed such substance aboard a vessel. This contention lacks merit. The plain language of Sec. 955a(d)(1), under which appellant was charged in count 2, made no mention of vessels. Appellant correctly notes that the Supreme Court has held that, absent a clearly expressed legislative intent to the contrary, the language of a criminal statute must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive. Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 101 S.Ct. 1137, 1141, 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981). The fact that Congress in 1986 redesignated Secs. 955a to 955c as the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act, 46 U.S.C. Secs. 1901-1903, does not manifest such contrary intent as to the applicability of Sec. 955a in 1980 when the offense occurred. The intended scope of Sec. 955a was clearly indicated: This section is intended to reach acts of possession, manufacture or distribution committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. 21 U.S.C. Sec. 955a(h). Neither Sec. 955a(d) nor Sec. 955a(h) at that time contained any reference to vessels. 18