Court Opinion

ID: 9846834
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:49:03.597939+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:52.487980
License: Public Domain

COOK, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting.
Because United States v. Poindexter continues to control our interpretation of the mens rea requirement in 18 U.S.C. § 2113(e), we affirm Parks’s conviction.
*930Poindexter analyzed Section 2113(e) and held that the plain meaning of “kills” in the phrase “kills any person” includes no scienter element. See Poindexter, 44 F.3d at 409. Poindexter interpreted a version of Section 2113(e) that Congress has since amended, but that amendment left undisturbed the portion of the statute relevant to Poindexter’s mens rea holding. The amendment changed only Section 2113(e)’s minimum punishment provisions — not the “kills any person” aspect. Thus, regardless of whether the amendment rendered the statute’s penalty provisions ambiguous, Poindexter’s interpretation of the mens rea element still holds. See, e.g., United States v. Parrett, 530 F.3d 422, 430 n. 5 (6th Cir.2008) (despite amendments to 21 U.S.C. § 853, court’s prior interpretation controlled because the changes “did not affect the statutory language on which the ... court based its decision.”).
And because Parks failed to challenge his sentence in the district court, I would not consider sentencing on appeal, and would leave the district court’s sentencing judgment in place.