Court Opinion

ID: 9484076
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 09:39:56.328376+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:50:00.393569
License: Public Domain

SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I agree with the majority’s rejection of Dr. Krai’s broad test of what constitutes a “plant” in favor of the more straightforward one adopted by the Eighth and Tenth Circuits. I write separately only to express an underlying concern with what I view as an inappropriate use Of expert witnesses to define statutory terms. Admittedly, the danger of transferring a nondele-gable responsibility to interpret the Guidelines as a matter of law is less imminent when an expert testifies at a sentencing hearing with only the court present. Nonetheless, use of expert testimony to interpret statutes, regulations and guidelines *880with the force of law ties statutory construction to the nature and quality of evidence presented in an adversarial context.
Finally, as pointed out by the Tenth Circuit in United States v. Eves, 932 F.2d 856 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 112 S.Ct. 236, 116 L.Ed.2d 192 (1991), there is no reason to believe that Congress intended anything other than an ordinary meaning of the statutory term. Id. at 859-60. If a highly scientific meaning were intended, that fact would be apparent from the face of the statute, or in the legislative history. Absent such an indication, we must “as-sum[e] that the ordinary meaning of the statutory language accurately expresses the legislative purposes.” Id. at 859 (citation omitted).