Opinion ID: 348399
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: repealer

Text: 20 Defendants argue that the repeal of 22 U.S.C. § 1934 and substitution of 22 U.S.C. § 2778 abates the prosecution in this case. 22 U.S.C. § 1934 (§ 414 of the Mutual Security Act of 1954) was repealed in Pub.L. 94-329, Title II, § 212(b)(1), June 30, 1976, 90 Stat. 745. The repealer provides that a reference to § 414 shall be deemed to be a reference to § 38 of the Arms Export Control Act, 22 U.S.C. § 2778, and references to licenses issued under § 38 of the Arms Export Control Act shall include licenses under § 414. The repealer provides further. 21 (2) All determinations, authorizations, regulations, orders, contracts, agreements, and other actions issued, undertaken, or entered into under section 414 of the Mutual Security Act of 1954 shall continue in full force and effect until modified, revoked, or superseded by appropriate authority. 22 Defendants contend that the preceding section does not include prosecutions, and moreover, the instant cases were based on violations of the regulations, rather than the statute itself. We do not pass upon the Government's position that the regulations, rather than the statute, are controlling, although the regulations continued in effect. See Executive Order No. 11940, reprinted as a note to 50 U.S.C.App. § 2403. Moreover, there is evidence of congressional intent to continue limitation on arms exportation. See generally 1976 U.S.Code Cong. and Admin.News 1378. However, in our view the General Savings Clause, 1 U.S.C. § 109, governs this case: 23 The repeal of any statute shall not have the effect to release or extinguish any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred under such statute, unless the repealing Act shall so expressly provide, and such statute shall be treated as still remaining in force for the purpose of sustaining any proper action or prosecution . . . . 24 See Warden v. Marrero, 417 U.S. 653, 94 S.Ct. 2532, 41 L.Ed.2d 383 (1974). Here, the repealing statute does not express any intention to extinguish liability. To the contrary, it leads to the opposite conclusion. Accordingly, we reject the defendants' contention.