Court Opinion

ID: 9468547
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:17:23.073204+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:40:55.021573
License: Public Domain

SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING
Before SEITZ, Chief Judge, and VAN DUSEN, ALDISERT, ADAMS, GIBBONS, HUNTER, WEIS, GARTH, HIGGINBOT-HAM and SLO VITER, Circuit Judges.
JAMES HUNTER, III, Circuit Judge.
The petition for rehearing filed by appellant in the above entitled case having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this court and to all the other available circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the court in banc, the petition for rehearing is denied.
Judges Aldisert, Adams and Weis would grant the petition for rehearing in banc.
STATEMENT BY JUDGE ADAMS
Judge Adams votes for rehearing because he believes the imposition of a penalty, in the context here, based on the number of individual documents (simulated travel checks and bonds) mailed to the public is inconsistent with the governing statute, which provides for a “penalty of not more than $10,000 for each violation.” The sole support for the holding on this point is dicta from three district court opinions. The only court of appeals opinion which addresses the subject, U. S. A. v. J. B. Williams, 498 F.2d 414 (2d Cir. 1974), would appear to point in the other direction. Further, it is at least questionable that Congress would authorize a penalty of up to $10,000 for each piece of mail that is sent. If the rationale of the opinion in this case were to be applied to newspapers, for example, it could result in penalties of millions of dollars for a single press run. In the absence of clear language sanctioning a result of this kind, I would be reluctant to attribute such an intent to Congress.
Judges ALDISERT and WEIS join Judge ADAMS’ statement.