Court Opinion

ID: 9468281
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:10:09.396061+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:40:47.935886
License: Public Domain

HOLLOWAY,
Circuit Judge, concurring and dissenting:
I am in agreement with the majority opinion except as to its affirmance of the *252conviction on count 9 under 18 U.S.C. § 2314. I am unable to agree that the application for a duplicate title comes within the definition of “securities” under the criminal statutes and would reverse that conviction.
It is true that an actual certificate of title has been held to be a security within the definitions of 18 U.S.C. § 2311. Nevertheless I find no support in the cases for holding a mere application by a private party for a duplicate certificate to be a security. Indeed, United States v. Canton, 470 F.2d 861 (2d Cir.), rejected the Government’s contention that a New York motor vehicle registration is a security by coming within the terms of “a certificate of interest in property” or a document or writing “evidencing ownership of goods, wares, and merchandise,” as the definitions are extended by § 2311. The Canton opinion persuasively reviews the legislative history and concludes that such an instrument has no value in itself, pointing to the commercial sense within which the terms are used. Id. at 863-64.
Thus the holdings on automobile certificates of title or duplicate certificates of title themselves, e. g., United States v. Elliott, 571 F.2d 880, 908 (5th Cir.) (stressing that the certificate is prima facie evidence of ownership under Georgia law), do not support the Government here in the case of a mere application for a certificate.
The Kansas statutes do not recognize any independent function or commercial use for an application for a duplicate certificate. See K.S.A. 1975 §§ 8-135 and 8-139. The request merely contemplates issuance of the duplicate certificate. It is more like the blank share certificates which were held not to come within the statute in United States v. Jackson, 576 F.2d 749, 755-56 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 828, 858, 99 S.Ct. 102, 175, 58 L.Ed.2d 122, 167, the court there noting the rule of strict construction. The rule of strict construction of criminal statutes, see Prussian v. United States, 282 U.S. 675, 677, 51 S.Ct. 223, 224, 75 L.Ed. 610, has been applied by us to this offense. United States v. Sparrow, 635 F.2d 794, 796 (10th Cir.) (en banc); see also United States v. Canton, supra, 470 F.2d at 865.
For these reasons I must respectfully dissent as to the affirmance of the conviction of count 9.