Opinion ID: 273830
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. 1084.

Text: 40 Appellant urges that the statute is unconstitutional in that it is indefinite, vague and uncertain, and therefore violates the Fifth Amendment. In support of his argument that this statute is void for vagueness, appellant quotes language from the recent case of Giaccio v. State of Pennsylvania,382 U.S. 399, 86 S.Ct. 518, 15 L.Ed.2d 447 (1966). The statute involved there was an 1860 law of Pennsylvania that permitted the taxing of costs against a defendant acquitted in a criminal case. A reading of that statute shows that it fixed no standards for its application. It was vague and uncertain. 41 In Turf Center, Inc. v. United States, 325 F.2d 793, 795 (9 Cir. 1963), this court held 18 U.S.C. 1952 as not void for vagueness. That section is similar to and a companion section to 18 U.S.C. 1084. 42 'A statute meets the standard of certainty required by the Constitution if its language conveys sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practices.    The fact that in some cases it may be difficult to determine the side of the line on which a particular fact situation falls is not sufficient reason to hold the language too ambiguous to define a criminal offense.   ' 43 We do not consider the authorities cited by the appellant as sustaining his position that this statute is void or that it interferes with the right of free speech. The plain and unambiguous language used in the statute is entitled to its ordinary and reasonable interpretation. This statute meets the standard of certainty required by the Constitution. 44