Court Opinion

ID: 9490013
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 13:30:25.768023+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:53:51.034225
License: Public Domain

WINTER, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the result:
I concur in virtually all of the analysis in Judge Thompson’s excellent opinion. I would not, however, place as much emphasis as he does on the rule of lenity.
I agree that the statutory language in question is ambiguous but believe that there is no need for a tie breaker to resolve the ambiguity. As his opinion notes, the government’s reading of Section 851 creates a redundancy that makes virtually no sense. If the language “the offense for which such increased punishment may be imposed” refers only, to the offense charged in the particular case, the language is entirely superfluous because that Section applies to offenses that can be prosecuted only by indictment or waiver thereof. Appellant’s interpretation of the statute, while concededly not compelled by the plain language, makes sense because it insures that a substantial increase in penalty will not be imposed unless the prior crime was of a serious nature. Where an ambiguity admits of two interpretations, one of which creates an inexplicable redundancy and the other of which makes sense, I see no need to revert to the rule of lenity to resolve the ambiguity. Otherwise, I concur in Judge Thompson’s opinion.