Court Opinion

ID: 9499393
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 17:47:37.532233+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:59:29.028009
License: Public Domain

ALARCÓN, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to reverse Count 9 of the *605Second Superceding Indictment. I also concur in the majority’s decision to vacate the sentence but on different grounds. I agree with the Government that the sentence imposed by the District Court was unreasonable and an extreme departure from the advisory Sentencing Guidelines.
I
Count 9 reads as follows:
On or about December 14, 1999, at Port Angeles, within the Western District of Washington, AHMED RESSAM knowingly carried an explosive during the commission of a felony prosecutable in a court of the United States, that is making a false statement to a U.S. Customs Inspector as charged in Count 5 herein. All in Violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 844(h)(2)
Section 844(h)(2) provides as follows:
Whoever — ... (2) carries an explosive during the commission of any felony which may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, ... shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years.
In Count 5 of the indictment, Mr. Ressam was charged as follows:
On or about December 14, 1999, at Port Angeles, within the Western District of Washington, in a matter within the jurisdiction of the United States Custom Service, an agency of the United States, AHMED RESSAM did knowingly and willfully make a false, fraudulent, and fictitious material statement and representation; in that the defendant presented to the U.S. Customs inspectors a Customs Declarations Form # 6059B identifying himself as Benni Noris, whereas in truth and fact, as he then well knew, this statement was false in that his true name is AHMED RES-SAM. All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001.
The district court gave the following instruction to the jury concerning the elements that the Government was required to prove to demonstrate a violation of § 844(h)(2).
The defendant is charged in Count 9 of the indictment with carrying an explosive during the commission of a felony in violation of Section 844(h)(2) of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
First, the defendant knowingly carried explosive materials; and Second, the defendant committed the felony of making a false statement to a U.S. Customs Inspector (as charged in Count 5.of the Indictment) while he was carrying those explosive materials.
In his opening brief, Mr. Ressam concedes that “[t]he government did present evidence that Mr. Ressam was carrying explosives in the trunk of the car he was driving at the time he completed and presented the customs form, and that Mr. Ressam falsely identified himself on the form.” Opening Brief of Appellant at 18. Mr. Ressam does not argue that the words used by Congress in § 844(h)(2) are ambiguous or lack plain meaning.
The Supreme Court instructed in Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 98 S.Ct. 2279, 57 L.Ed.2d 117 (1978) that: “When confronted with a statute which is plain and unambiguous on its face, we ordinarily do not look to legislative history as a guide to its meaning.” Id. at 184, 98 S.Ct. 2279 n. 29. In United States v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 278 U.S. 269, 49 S.Ct. 133, 73 L.Ed. 322 (1929), the Court stated: “where the language of an enactment is clear, and construction according *606to its terms does not lead to absurd or impracticable consequences, the words employed are to be taken as the final expression of the meaning intended.” Id. at 278, 49 S.Ct. 133.
More recently, in Lamie v. United States Trustee, 540 U.S. 526, 124 S.Ct. 1023, 157 L.Ed.2d 1024 (2004), Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, stated:
The starting point in discerning congressional intent is the existing statutory text, and not the predecessor statutes. It is well established that when the statute’s language is plain, the sole function of the courts — at least where the disposition required by the text is not absurd — is to enforce it according to its terms, (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
Id. at 534, 124 S.Ct. 1023.
Mr. Ressam argues that we must read the words “in relation to” into the text of § 844(h)(2). He contends that we must reverse because the court refused an instruction he submitted that states as follows:
The defendant is charged in Count 9 of the Indictment with knowingly carrying an explosive during and in relation to a felony prosecutable in a court of the United States in violation of Section 844(h)(2) of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
First, the defendant committed the crime of making a false statement to a United States customs inspector as charged in Count 5 of the Indictment;
Second, the defendant knowingly carried an explosive; and
Third, the defendant carried the explosive during and in relation to the false statement crime alleged in Count 5 of the Indictment.
A defendant takes such action in relation to the crime if the explosive facilitated or played a role in the false statements charge alleged in Count 5.
(emphasis added).
Mr. Ressam’s proposed instruction would have required the District Court to add an element to § 844(h)(2) that does not appear in the statute enacted by Congress. Justice Kennedy, in his opinion in Lamie, rejected a similar notion:
Petitioner’s argument stumbles on still harder ground in the face of another canon of interpretation. His interpretation of the Act — reading the word “attorney” in § 330(a)(1)(A) to refer to “debtors’ attorneys” in § 330(a)(1)— would have us read an absent word into the statute. That is, his argument would result “not [in] a construction of [the] statute, but, in effect, an enlargement of it by the court, so that what was omitted, presumably by inadvertence, may be included within its scope.” Iselin v. United States, 270 U.S. 245, 251, 46 S.Ct. 248, 70 L.Ed. 566 (1926). With a plain, non-absurd meaning in view, we need not proceed in this way. “There is a basic difference between filling a gap left by Congress’ silence and rewriting rules that Congress has affirmatively and specifically enacted.” Mobil Oil Corp. v. Higginbotham, 436 U.S. 618, 625, 98 S.Ct. 2010, 56 L.Ed.2d 581 (1978).
Our unwillingness to soften the import of Congress’ chosen words even if we believe the words lead to a harsh outcome is longstanding. It results from “deference to the supremacy of the Legislature, as well as recognition that Congressmen typically vote on the language of a bill.” United States v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84, 95, 105 S.Ct. 1785, 85 L.Ed.2d *60764 (1985) (citing Richards v. United States, 369 U.S. 1, 9, 82 S.Ct. 585, 7 L.Ed.2d 492 (1962)).
540 U.S. at 538, 124 S.Ct. 1023. (emphasis added).
We lack the constitutional authority to add an element to a criminal statute. That is Congress’ function. Our role is merely to interpret what Congress has enacted.
II
This Court has not previously addressed the question whether a trial court must instruct a jury that, to convict under § 844(h)(2), the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant carried explosives during and in relation to the commission of a felony which may be prosecuted in a court of the United States. The Third and Fifth Circuits have expressly rejected this contention.
In United States v. Rosenberg, 806 F.2d 1169 (3rd Cir.1986), the Third Circuit affirmed a judgment of conviction for a violation of § 844(h)(2), wherein the trial court rejected the defendants’ argument that the Government was required to present evidence of a specific connection between the carrying of explosives and the alleged felony. The Third Circuit reasoned as follows:
Section 844(h)(2) by its terms only requires that the government show that the defendant unlawfully carried an explosive “during the commission of any felony.” The plain everyday meaning of “during” is “at the same time” or “at a point in the course of.” See, Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 703 (1961). It does not normally mean “at the same time and in connection with....” It is not fitting for this court to declare that the crime defined by § 844(h)(2) has more elements than those enumerated on the face of the statute. If Congress sees fit to add a relational element to § 844(h)(2), it is certainly free to do so, in the same manner that it added a relational element to § 924(c). Until such time, we will hold that § 844(h)(2) has no relational element, and accordingly, we now hold that the district court correctly denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss Count 5.
Id. at 1178-79.
The Third Circuit’s determination in Rosenberg that a federal court cannot read absent words into a statute is faithfully consistent with Justice Kennedy’s statement in Lamie that federal courts cannot “rewrit[e] rules that Congress has affirmatively and specifically enacted.” Lamie, 540 U.S. at 538, 124 S.Ct. 1023 (quoting Mobil Oil, 436 U.S. at 625, 98 S.Ct. 2010). In United States v. Ivy, 929 F.2d 147 (5th Cir.1991) the Fifth Circuit, citing the Third Circuit’s opinion in Rosenberg, “refuse[d] to judicially append the relation element to § 844(h)(2).” Id. at 151.
The Rosenberg decision was written twenty years ago. Since then, Congress has not amended § 844(h)(2) to add a relational element. Under our constitutional doctrine of the separation of powers, we cannot usurp Congress’ authority.
Ill
The majority has refused to follow the Third Circuit’s decision in Rosenberg, and the Fifth Circuit’s opinion in Ivy, that we lack the authority to add an “in relation to” element to § 844(h)(2). Instead, the majority asserts that it is “constrained” to apply this Court’s opinion in United States v. Stewart, 779 F.2d 538 (9th Cir.1985), overruled in part on other grounds by United States v. Hernandez, 80 F.3d 1253, 1257 (9th Cir.1996), which read a relational element into 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The term “constrain” is defined as “to force by stricture, restriction, or limitation imposed by *608nature, oneself, or circumstances and exigencies.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 489 (1976). I do not agree with my colleagues that we are forced, by the law of this Circuit, to follow Stewart in construing the words expressly and unambiguously set forth by Congress in a separate statute.
[A] three-judge panel may not overrule a prior decision of the court. That proposition is unassailable so far as it goes, but it does not take into account the possibility that our prior decision may have been undercut by higher authority to such an extent that it has been effectively overruled by such higher authority and hence is no longer binding on district judges and three-judge panels of this court.... We hold that the issues decided by the higher court need not be identical in order to be controlling. Rather, the relevant court of last resort must have undercut the theory or reasoning underlying the prior circuit precedent in such a way that the cases are clearly irreconcilable.
Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 899-900 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc).
More recently, in Ortega-Mendez v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir.2006), Judge Berzon pointed out that “[w]e are ‘bound not only by the holdings of [such intervening] decisions but also by their mode of analysis.’ ” Id. at 1019. (quoting Gill v. Stern (In re Stern), 345 F.3d 1036, 1043 (9th Cir.2003)). (internal quotations omitted).
In Stewart, a three-judge panel of this Court determined that it had the authority to add an element to a criminal statute that was unambiguous by referring to legislative history. We stated: “We interpret [§ 924(c) ] as if it contained the requirement that the firearm be possessed ‘during and in relation to’ the underlying offense.” 779 F.2d at 540. The Supreme Court’s subsequent holding in Lamie that, where the language is plain, we cannot “read an absent word into the statute,” 540 U.S. at 538, 124 S.Ct. 1023, undercuts our conclusion in Stewart that we had the authority to add a relational element to § 924(c). Accordingly, we are constrained to apply the holding and mode of analysis set forth in Lamie and enforce § 844(h)(2) “according to its terms” and not to “rewrit[e] rules that Congress has affirmatively and specifically enacted.” Lamie, 540 U.S. at 538, 124 S.Ct. 1023.
I would affirm the District Court’s judgment of conviction with respect to Count 9 by employing the following logical syllogism.
Section 844(h)(2) provides that “[whoever ... carries an explosive during the commission of any felony which may be prosecuted in a court of the United States ... shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years.”
It is undisputed that Mr. Ressam was carrying explosives in the trunk of his car when he falsely stated in a Customs Declaration Form # 6059B that his name was Benni Noris in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
Therefore, Mr. Ressam is subject to the enhanced punishment prescribed in § 844(h)(2) because he was carrying an explosive during the commission of the crime set forth in § 1001.