Opinion ID: 152386
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Second Sentence is Third Sentence's Preceding Sentence

Text: We are confident the referent of the phrase the preceding sentence in the third sentence is the second sentence. The meaning of the phrase is plain and unambiguous. While we commend defense counsel's creativity and zealous advocacy, [w]e are unable to adopt the constructive interpolations ingeniously offered by counsel for I.L. Id. at 670, 9 S.Ct. 651. The dictionary defines preceding as [e]arlier in time; existing or happening before something else; previous, former, antecedent; esp. that has just happened, occurring immediately before and as [t]hat precedes something in order or arrangement; that occupies a prior position; esp. that is placed immediately before; just mentioned, foregoing. Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.2010). See also Gross, 129 S.Ct. at 2350 (quoting the Oxford English Dictionary with approval). Congress's use of the phrase the preceding sentence in the third sentence, therefore, inexorably suggests its referent is the sentence immediately before the third sentence, i.e., the second sentence. Cf. Am. Tunaboat Ass'n v. Brown, 67 F.3d 1404, 1410-11 (9th Cir.1995) (defining preceding year in 16 U.S.C. § 1416 as the calendar year immediately before the current calendar year); First Nat'l Bank of Council Bluffs, Iowa v. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 956 F.2d 1456, 1463 (8th Cir.1992) (concluding the statutory phrase immediate preceding examination in 15 U.S.C. § 1607(e) was plain and unambiguous and referred to the `examination' that was made just prior). The fact that the second sentence incidentally modifies the first does not compel a contrary result. I.L.'s proposed construction is strained and unfaithful to the plain and unambiguous language within the fourth unnumbered paragraph of 18 U.S.C. § 5032. Had Congress wished to adopt I.L.'s proposed construction, in lieu of the preceding sentence Congress could have used a broader phrase, such as this paragraph, the first sentence of this paragraph as amended by the second, a preceding sentence, or the preceding two sentences. Cf. Home Life Ins. Co. v. Dunn, 19 Wall. 214, 86 U.S. 214, 224, 22 L.Ed. 68 (1873) (declining to read indefinite article into statutory text because there was no reason for interpolating this limitation); Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe v. United States, 197 F.3d 949, 952 (8th Cir.1999) (expounding upon the differences in the uses of indefinite and definite articles in statutes and remarking that a statute's use of the definite article the was employed to refer to something specific). While it is reasonable for Congress to expand the circumstances under which tribal election would be a necessary prerequisite to the transfer of juveniles for adult criminal prosecution, there is no textual foundation for the reading of § 5032 I.L. proposes. See McElroy v. United States, 455 U.S. 642, 656, 102 S.Ct. 1332, 71 L.Ed.2d 522 (1982) (While Congress could have written the statute to produce this result, there is no basis for us to adopt such a limited reading.). It is more reasonable Congress, in significantly amending the law to permit the transfer for adult prosecution of thirteen- and fourteen-year-old Indian juveniles, intended the tribes should elect whether to apply this transfer exposure for such young teenagers in their Indian country. The district court possessed the authority to transfer I.L. for adult prosecution without the Omaha Tribe's consent.