Court Opinion

ID: 9495063
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 15:53:36.416913+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:56:47.587117
License: Public Domain

KLEINFELD, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I agree with the views expressed by Justice Stevens in his dissent in United States v. Wells1 The statute before us is among those, which, at footnote 8, Justice Stevens thought implied a materiality requirement.2 Those views, however, were expressed in a dissent, not a majority opinion. I do not see a principled way to distinguish the statute before us from the one construed in Wells, and under Wells, materiality is not an element. So I am compelled to conclude that because of Wells, the statute before us has no materiality element.

. United States v. Wells, 519 U.S. 482, 500, 117 S.Ct. 921, 137 L.Ed.2d 107 (1997) (Stevens, J., dissenting).

. Wells, 519 U.S. at 505 n. 8, 117 S.Ct. 921 (Stevens, J., dissenting); see also United States v. Gaudin, 28 F.3d 943, 959-960, n. 4 (9th Cir.1994) (Kozinski, J., dissenting).