Document: 528 U.S. 23120 S.Ct. 469145 L.Ed.2d 353 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 98 942 WILLIAM FIORE, PETITIONERv.GREGORY WHITE, WARDEN, et al. ON WRIT CERTIORARI TO OFAPPEALS FOR THIRD CIRCUIT [November 30, 1999] Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The Commonwealth Pennsylvania convicted codefendants William Fiore and David Scarpone violating a provision law forbidding any person to "operate hazardous waste" facility without "permit." Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 35, §6018.401(a) (Purdon 1993) (reprinted at Appendix A, infra). Each codefendant appealed different intermediate state court, one which affirmed Fiore's conviction, other reversed Scarpone's. Supreme Court denied further review case, his conviction became final. However, that court agreed Scarpone's it subsequently held statutory did not apply those who, like Fiore, possessed permit but deviated radically from permit's terms. Consequently, set aside conviction. In light Court's decision in Scarpone, asked courts reconsider identical They request. He then broughta federal habeas corpus petition he argued, among things, Pennsylvania's courts, either as matter or constitutional law, must interpretation statute case. If this proposition is correct, asserted, would follow failed produce evidence all with respect essential element crime (namely, lack permit). On reasoning, concluded Federal Constitution requires release. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 307, 316 (1979); re Winship, 397 358, 364 (1970). 2 District granted petition, Appeals decision. We appellate court's rejection claim. Before deciding whether be we first know itself considers have explained what always meant, changed law. invoke certification procedure order obtain view matter. B, infra. 3 * relevant background circumstances include following: 4 1. owned operated waste disposal Pennsylvania. was facility's general manager. authorities, while conceding operate facility, claimed their deliberate alteration monitoring pipe hide leakage problem went so far beyond terms operation took place all. A jury them both having "operate[d] storage, treatment facility" §6018.401(a); see CC 8508740 (Ct. Common Pleas, Allegheny Cty., Pa., Jan. 19, 1988), p. 2, App. 6 (marking date Feb. 18, 1986). trial upheld despite existence permit, for, its view, "alterations represented such significant departure existing 'un-permitted' after alterations were taken" Id., 48, 44. 5 2. Superior 42 Cons. §742 (1998) (granting jurisdiction over appeals final common pleas). That "on basis below." 00485 PGH 1988 (May 12, 1989), pp. 3, 99 100. leave appeal on March 13, 1990; shortly thereafter, 3. codefendant, §762(a)(2)(ii) regulatory criminal cases). noted "valid permit," found Commonwealth's "strained best," aside. Commonwealth, 141 Commw. 560, 567, 596 A. 2d 892, 895 (1991). wrote: 7 "The clearly violation conditions permit. But say resulted new had been permitted engage semantic exercise cannot accept. [W]e will let [the provision's] language stretched activities fall some subsection." Ibid. 8 conclusion. It 9 "[T]he make out operating . Simply put, Mr. [T]o conclude constituted bald fiction endorse right reversing when one." 535 273, 279, 634 1109, 1112 (1993). 10 4. again once case twice more decided Scarpone. Appellee's Supplemental 97 3288 (CA3), 59, 61 (including docket sheets reflecting filings 1992, 24, 1994, Oct. 1994). requests. 11 5. sought collateral relief courts. Pleas County, refused grant for because "at time direct appeals, otherwise," "[t]he petitioner entitled retroactive application forth Scarpone." (Aug. 1994), 6. appeal, affirmed, previously litigated claim "direct no longer pending made ruling [Fiore] now seeks applied case." 445 Super. 401, 416, 665 1185, 1193 (1995). 12 relief. As pointed out, supra, argued imprisoned him "for conduct under section charged." 194. Court, acting Magistrate's recommendation, petition. Third Circuit reversed, however, primarily believed "state are obligation decisions retroactively." 149 F.3d 221, 222 (1998). 13 7. certiorari consider Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause II 14 essentially claims produced whatsoever crime, namely lacked "a permit." validity may depend upon statute's meaning, even trial. marked interpreted statute; previously, lower divided interpretation. §6018.401(a)'s "permit" requirement prohibited manner deviates terms, adjudicating accepted summary unpublished memorandum. Then, specifically rejected adopted by And authoritative statute, affirming only For reason, construction stated correct understanding final, applicable. Compare, e.g., Buradus General Cement Prods. Co., 52 205, 208 (Pa. 1947) (stating "[i]n general, placed becomes part act, very beginning" ) 416 417, 2d, 1193; (refusing [Fiore's] otherwise"). III 15 certify following question pursuant Rules Regarding Certification Questions law: 16 Does 1993), (1993), final? 17 respectfully request accept our Petition because, answer help determine proper state-law predicate determination questions raised 18 recommend designate (the here) appellant Gregory White, Warden, Attorney respondents appellees. 19 Clerk directed transmit copy briefs records filed Judgment proceedings reserved receipt response 20 ordered. APPENDIX OPINION 21 Ann. provides: 22 "No municipality shall store, transport, treat, dispose within unless transportation, treatment, authorized rules regulations department; own has obtained and, transport license transportation department." (Emphasis added.) 23 Section 6018.606(f) establishes penalties § 6018.401 24 "Any who stores, transports, treats, disposes [§6018.401] guilty felony second degree sentenced pay fine less than $2,500 $100,000 per day each imprisonment two years ten years, both." (Footnote omitted.) B 25 "RULES REGARDING CERTIFICATION OFQUESTIONS PENNSYLVANIA LAW 26 "1. This Petitions, basis, January 1, 1999 2000. 27 "2. Any file Court: 28 "a. United States Court; 29 "b. Appeals. 30 "3. motion party sua sponte. 31 "4. contain 32 brief statement nature stage petitioning court; 33 material facts case; 34 "c. determined; 35 "d. particular reasons why should certification; 36 "e. recommendation about designated Appellant Appellee subsequent pleadings 37 "f. attach copies papers parties regarding certification, Motion Certification, Response thereto, Stipulation Facts, etc." 745 (1999).

Category: 8