Document: 128 S. Ct. 1858 (2008) UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. Ahmed RESSAM. No. 07-455. Supreme Court of United States. Argued March 25, 2008. Decided May 19, *1859 Michael B. Mukasey, for Petitioner. Thomas W. Hillier, II, Respondent. *1860 Paul D. Clement, Solicitor General, Washington, D.C., Laura E. Mate, Lissa Wolfendale Shook, Seattle, WA, Kenneth L. Wainstein, Assistant Attorney R. Dreeben, Deputy Toby J. Heytens, to the John F. De Pue, Department Justice, Justice STEVENS delivered opinion Court. Respondent attempted enter States by car ferry at Port Angeles, Washington. Hidden in trunk his rental were explosives that he intended detonate Los Angeles International Airport. After docked, respondent was questioned a customs official, who instructed him complete declaration form; did so, identifying himself on form as Canadian citizen (he is Algerian) named Benni Noris (his name Ressam). then directed secondary inspection station, where another official performed search car. The discovered and related items car's spare tire well. subsequently convicted number crimes, including felony making false statement violation 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (1994 ed., Supp. V) (Count 5) carrying an explosive "during commission 844(h)(2) ed.) 9). Appeals Ninth Circuit set aside conviction Count 9 because it read word "during," used 844(h)(2), include requirement be carried "in relation to" underlying felony. 474 F.3d 597 (2007). Because construction statute conflicted with decisions other Courts Appeals, we granted certiorari.[1] 552 U.S. ___, 741, 169 Ed. 2d 579 I most natural reading relevant statutory text provides sufficient basis reversal. That reads: "Whoever "(1) uses fire or commit any which may prosecuted court States, "(2) carries during "including enhanced punishment if committed use deadly dangerous weapon device shall, addition provided such felony, sentenced *1861 imprisonment 10 years." 844(h). It undisputed hidden respondent's "explosives."[2] also "carr[ying]" those when knowingly made statements violated V). There no need consult dictionary definitions "during" order arrive conclusion engaged precise conduct described ed.). term denotes temporal link; surely statute. contemporaneous 1001, them violation. II history construe today further supports our Congress not intend require Government establish relationship between originally enacted part its "Regulation Explosives" Title XI Organized Crime Control Act 1970, 84 Stat. 957. provision modeled after portion Gun 1968, 102, 82 1224, codified, amended, 924(c) (2000 ed. earlier mandated least 1 more than years' person "carries firearm unlawfully States." 924(c)(2) (1964 IV). Except "explosive" instead "firearm" 924(c)(2), two provisions identical. In 1984, redrafted statute; increased penalties attached and, significantly purposes, deleted "unlawfully" inserted words "and immediately "during." 1005(a), 98 2138. Reviewing offense before amendment but decided appeal until enactment, held original version had implicitly included expressly added while case pending appeal. As then-Judge Kennedy explained: "The written Stewart pertinent crime `carr[y] . .' (1982). revised section 1984 substituted `during' phrase `during to.' U.S.C.A. (West Supp.1985) (emphasis added). Our study legislative indicates `in to' language create element previously exist, rather make clear condition already implicit reveals eliminated unlawfully, *1862 Supp.1985), allay explicitly concern could under committing entirely unrelated possession firearm. Though does say so expressly, strongly implies alter scope ." Stewart, 779 F.2d 538, 539-540 (1985) (citations omitted). Relying precedent, this concluded statute, like item question Whatever merits argument contained relational requirement, subsequent changes both statutes convince us Government's 844(h) presently correct. III 1988, "Explosives Offenses Amendments," 6474(b), 102 4379, modified Those amendments violating provision, 6474(b)(2), id., 4380; they "unlawfully," 6474(b)(1), ibid. Unlike however, insert While possible omission inadvertent, possibility seems remote given stark difference thereby introduced into otherwise similar texts §§ 924(c). Even similarity might have supported inference their current virtually commands opposite inference. initially identical, Congress' replacement to," coupled deletion without convinces introduce accept straightforward Since requires nothing further. Accordingly, judgment reversed. ordered. THOMAS, whom SCALIA joins, concurring judgment. plain squarely answers presented case, join only Part Court's opinion. BREYER, dissenting. imposes mandatory 10-year sentence [federal] felony." 844(h)(2). interpreted requiring "relation" explosives-carrying (here, officer), "`facilitated'" "aided" 597, 604 interprets contrary. holds "temporal link" *1863 say, occurred same time. See ante, 1861. cannot agree either interpretation. My problem interpretation would permit individual legally time engages totally "Explosives," tells us, includes obviously material "gunpowders" "dynamite" "chemical compounds" "mixture[s]" "device[s]" whose "ignition fire, friction, concussion" means "may cause explosion." 844(j). And definition encompasses commonplace materials kerosene, gasoline, certain fertilizers. Moreover, refers legal. Further, applies "any" federal category ranges from murder mail fraud. 1111 V); 1341 Consequently brings within statute's (and impose additional prison upon), example, farmer lawfully transporting load fertilizer intentionally mails unauthorized lottery ticket friend, hunter gunpowder shotgun shells buys snacks counterfeit $20 bill, truckdriver diesel fuel lies about value presents bought Canada family, accountant 6-year-long conspiracy tax evasion who, one day conspiracy, gas lawnmower. instances lawful has whatsoever do unlawful felonies. imagine why wanted presence irrelevant, behavior trigger term. demand majority link." But imply limitations well, depending upon context made. Thus, tell friend Puerto Rico, "I wear gloves Washington's winter," think mean baseball mitts. Rather, understands) link winter. When group lawyers, take notes oral argument," understand) bear law being argued. called my brother day," particular (other relation) phone call. Context makes difference. Here, cover "felony." lengthy minimum evidence what separately indicates, namely sought criminalize harsh respect "intentional misuse explosives," see H.R.Rep. 91-1549, p. 38 (1970), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News pp. 4007, 4013 added) (hereinafter H.R. Rep.). A some even arguably "misuse" unless something Nor absence there *1864 obvious reason Similar reasoning led 1985 interpret punished significant firearms-carrying 538. (then-Judge) KENNEDY recognized "`Congress penalize happens gun commits offense.'" Id., 540 (quoting Moore, 580 360, 362 (C.A.9 1978)). view, should apply firearms Rep., 69, 4046 (the over area stringent 1968 relating commit, Federal felony"). recognize now differs important way. (with 1-to-10-year sentence) amended providing five years striking "unlawfully." specific limitation, (so covered "felony"). Ibid. appear neither pre-1984 subject (yet nonetheless found requirement). fact these determinative decision remove "unlawfully". By removing word, indicated "persons are licensed carry firearms" "abuse privilege weapon." S.Rep. 98-225, 314, n. (1984), 3182, 3492. At time, believed firearm's "played crime, pocket never displayed referred course pugilistic barroom fight." dual objective textually clear. here must lead ask (but answer) question: Did different statute? strong reasons thinking not. Congress, all, response Justice's express request "bring" line with" *1865 131 Rec. 14166 (1985); 134 32700 (1988) (statement Sen. Biden) (noting purpose amending "bring [previously] adopted parallel using offenses"). accordingly struck 4379-4380. If neglecting add meaningful distinction statutes, someone somewhere mentioned objective. differently break very treatment urging, amend first place. produce peculiar unfair results mentioned. supra, 1860. conflict rationale enacting (to punish explosives). risk incoherent results: Why wish policeman revolver bullets? can explain less damaging ways. drafters assumed prior judicial interpretation, (namely, 538) unnecessary. Lorillard Pons, 434 575, 580, 866, 55 40 (1978) ("Congress presumed aware administrative adopt re-enacts change"). Or, recognizes, reflect simple drafting inadvertence. 1862. concede signal relative scope. inevitably so. Cf. Russello 464 16, 23, 104 296, 78 17 (1983) presumption acted purposely "includes omits Act" (internal quotation marks omitted)). circumstances linguistic determinative. No elsewhere life alone every nuance application. matters. judges give effect intent legislature, reference history. Court, today, strange describe above precisely resolves examining meaning just isolation. context, excludes contextual furthers purpose, likely encourage random punishment, consistent overall result, Circuit, insisting *1866 merely temporal) restricts requisite (or "aided") F.3d, 604. facilitate explosives. matter direction facilitating flows? Either way, reasonably conclude will elevate risks harm ordinarily arise out felony's commission. consider "misused." believe here, officer, facilitated aided remand determine relation. For reasons, respectfully dissent. NOTES [1] Both Third Fifth Circuits declined Rosenberg, 806 1169, 1178-1179 (C.A.3 1986) ("The everyday `at time' point of....' normally connection with.....' fitting declare defined elements enumerated face statute"); Ivy, 929 147, 151 (C.A.5 1991) ("Section ... Ivy urges .... We refuse judicially append 844(h)(2)"). [2] concedes "explosives," occasion boundaries Specifically, comment when, ever, "such fertilizers," post, 1863 (BREYER, J., dissenting), fall "explosive."

Category: 0