Document: 376 U.S. 75 84 S.Ct. 553 11 L.Ed.2d 527 UNITED STATES, Appellant,v.David Thomas HEALY et al. No. 64. Argued Jan. 6, 1964. Decided Feb. 17, Stephen J. Pollak, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Robert L. Shevin, Miami, Fla., appellees. Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 A federal grand jury alleged in an indictment, returned United States District Court Southern Florida, that on April 13, 1962, appellees kidnaped at gunpoint pilot a private Cessna 172 airplane and compelled him to transport them from Florida Cuba. Count indictment charged with having violated 18 U.S.C. § 1201,1 Federal Kidnaping Act. Under 2, were commission 'aircraft piracy' contravention 1961 amendment 902 Aviation Act 1958, Stat. 466, 49 (Supp. IV) 1472(i).2 2 The dismissed September 1962 before trial. It held kidnaping is not 'for ransom or reward otherwise,' as required by 1201(a), unless committed pecuniary benefit defendant 'an aircraft flight air commerce' within meaning piracy provision, which it read limited commercial airliners. Government's petition rehearing, filed October was denied November 8. On December 5, Government notice appeal this under 3731, permitting direct when dismissal based construction statute upon founded. We noted probable jurisdiction, 372 963, 83 1089, 10 127. conclude judgment must be reversed. I. 3 Appellees contend without jurisdiction thereby precluded considering case its merits. They argue that, absent authorization rule, filing rehearing criminal cannot extent time appeal. Rule 11(2) provides: 4 'An permitted law district court shall prescribed clerk thirty days after entry order appealed from.' 5 undisputed 30 denial although original judgment. Since judgment, we are faced attempt rejuvenate extinguished right Cf. Allegrucci v. States, 954, 950, 9 978. question, therefore, simply whether timely permissible renders final purposes until disposes petition—in other words such circumstances 30-day period begins run date rehearing. 6 latter well-established rule civil cases, brought here certiorari, e.g., Ellicott, 223 524, 539, 32 334, 337, 56 L.Ed. 535; Morse 270 151, 153—154, 46 241, 242, 70 518; Bowman Loperena, 311 262, 264—266, 61 201, 85 177. That petition, least review, may also extend certiorari unarticulated premise has consistently proceeded. See, Panico 375 29, 19, (order extending entered 19 en banc, 45 Appeals); Corey 169, 298, 229 (petition Genovese decided Evola 32, 24, 106 16 judgment). In Craig 298 637, 670, 80 1371, application writ premature, 'without prejudice renewal action Circuit Appeals rehearing.' This summary disposition plainly reflects advertent decision judgments nonfinal so long petitions pending. 7 have recently recognized appropriateness Forman 361 416, 425—426, 481, 486, 412. practice been treat same effect seeking review do similar cases won below. Williams, 341 58, 71 595, 95 747 (appeal Court; 29 motion 44 order); Smith, 342 225, 72 260, 96 252 28 109 Calderon, 348 160, 186, 99 202 Appeals; 88 8 place great reliance absence any governing Government, but both procedural doctrines lack foundation. wording Court, unilluminating issue standing alone, virtually identical 22(2), encompasses defendants Government. inference compelling no difference treatment intended between appealable those reviewable States. constrained these rules consistent traditional unquestioned practice. 37(a)(2) Rules Criminal Procedure3 does alter conclusion, since sheds light relevance Nor can principle strict statutes governmental appeals Carroll 354 394, 77 1332, 1442, utilized undermine criminal, well civil, litigation. No persuasive considerations policy dictate deviant standard government appeals. Of course speedy desirable, deprive opportunity lower correction errors might, some circumstances, actually prolong process litigation—since plenary consideration question ordinarily consumes more than could, impose added unnecessary burden adjudication Court.4 would senseless p §§ while pending below, significant saving achieved altering ordinary consideration. determine II. 12 By interpreting 1201 require motive profit, disregarded plain holding Gooch 297 124, 395, 522, defendant, who had seized carried away state peace officer attempting effectuate his arrest, subject prosecution statute. Prior 1934 amendment, applicable only if person transported reward. then changed encompass persons otherwise, except, minor, parent thereof,' 48 781. (Emphasis added.) Gooch, noting ambiguity word 'reward,' found convincing evidence amendment's legislative history addition 'otherwise' make clear nonpecuniary did preclude Senate Judiciary Committee, quoted memorandum Department House Committee reported bill designed 'not reward, reason.'5 Court's conclusion amended covered facts clearly accord congressional purpose. 13 Courts followed Parker, Cir., 103 F.2d 857; Brooks 199 336; Hayes 296 657, challenge authority case. While recognizing kidnapings gain, they assert restricted otherwise illegal contention support language history, judicial decisions, reason. certainly suggests distinction ultimate purpose kidnaping; one intended, exclusion parent-child largely superfluous, conduct rarely result intrinsically Nothing reports debates supports appellees' position. two Wheatley 159 599, 600; Bearden 304 532 (judgment vacated another ground, 252, 875, 732), assumed applicability turn illegality kidnaper. strained reading 1201. murder accelerate accrual one's rightful inheritance hardly less heinous facilitate theft; token, find correlation propriety sought furthered undesirability act itself. rely penal statutes,6 maxim directive invent distinctions neither reflective behind enactments nor intimated used implemen goal.7 14 hold improperly first indictment. III. 15 makes crime, inter alia, exercise control, threat force wrongful intent, commerce,' 902(i), 1472(i). Examination provision itself relation rest statute, apart reference stands against aircraft'; 'in flight'; commerce.' Congress include airplanes could referred 'any aircraft,' but, phrase aircraft' face all-inclusive term. Appellees' statutory refers airlines contradicted definition commerce act, 101 737, 1301: '(4) 'Air means interstate, overseas, foreign transportation mail operation navigation limits airway directly affects, endanger safety in, 17 Without covers above overlooked drafters indicated different phraseology contemporaneous concerning concealed weapons. Section 902(l) 1472(l), crime carry weapon 'while aboard being operated carrier transportation.' Thus knew how choose refer solely airliners wished so. conclusions drawn confirmed history. Interstate Foreign Commerce reported, H.R.Rep. 958, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., U.S.Code Cong. Adm.News 1961, p. 2563, term 'air design because broad scope defined existing law, specifically cited 'the urgent need stronger laws acts 3, subsection regarding weapons 'would operations, whereas subsections (including relating piracy) apply 15. Comments during debate Committee's understanding, see remarks Congressman Harris (107 Cong.Rec. 16545) Williams 16547—16548). Senator Engle, sponsor provisions Senate, explicit: 'Yes; applies all commerce, includes, course, aircraft, well.' 15243). statements members evincing concern protection passengers airlines, see, Rostenkowski 16552), reflect intent put beyond provision. Indeed, often-expressed provide solution jurisdictional problems involved fixing locus transit arresting deplaning passenger engaged activity over territory State, pp. 3—5, suppose, evidence, aircraft; pertinent done Finding expressed Congress, manifested second count incorrect. 20 below reversed remanded instructions reinstate counts 21 ordered. 22 Reversed instructions. '(a) Whoever knowingly transports interstate unlawfully seized, confined, inveigled, decoyed, kidnaped, abducted, thereof, punished * *.' '(1) Who ver commits attempts commit piracy, herein defined, punished— '(2) As subsection, seizure violence 'Time Taking Appeal. An taken from, new trial arrest made 10-day convictment denying motion. When imposes sentence represented counsel, advised he requests, prepare file forthwith behalf defendant. authorized case, record legal issues indicate good faith petitioning would, countenance States' using delaying tactic litigation; there is, however, slightest basis believing try S.Rep. 534, 73d 2d Mar. 20, 1934; 1457, May 1934, 2. Chatwin 326 455, 66 233, 90 198, transporting girl maintain 'celestial' marriage, inapposite. There element coercion deception, central kidnaping, absent. Our relieves us unlawful and, so, purpose, obvious, necessary However, observed trip Cuba lawful passports endorsed travel See Presidential Proclamations 2914, Dec. 16, 1950 (64 A454); 3004, 1953 (67 C31); 215 Immigration Nationality 1952, 163, 190, 1185; State Public Notice 179, 26 Fed.Reg. 492, 1961. Appellees, claiming lawfulness showing complied regulations rests noncompliance discussion legality points up untenable basic surely anomalous permit point destination passport, passport specially endorsed.

Category: 0