Court Opinion

ID: 2963717
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:14:13.864255+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:44.808995
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                      __________

          No. 93-1898

                                    UNITED STATES,
                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                  MICHAEL B. LONDON,
                                 Defendant, Appellant
                                       _______

                                        Before

                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________
                      Coffin and Bownes, Senior Circuit Judges,
                                         _____________________
                 Selya, Cyr, Boudin, Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                                      ______________
                                      __________

                                    ORDER OF COURT

                              Entered:  October 20, 1995
                                      __________

                    The panel of judges that rendered  the decision in this

          case having voted to deny the petition for rehearing submitted by

          the appellant and the  suggestion for the holding of  a rehearing

          en banc having  been carefully  considered by the  judges of  the

          court in regular active service and a majority of said judges not

          having voted to order that the  appeal be heard or reheard by the

          court en banc.
                __ ____

                    It is  ordered  that a  petition  for rehearing  and  a

          suggestion for rehearing en banc be denied.
                                   __ ____

                             TORRUELLA,  Chief  Judge   (Dissenting).     I
                             TORRUELLA,  Chief  Judge   (Dissenting).
                                         ____________

          believe the panel opinion in this case is contrary to the Supreme

          Court's  decision in  Ratzlaf v.  United States,  114 S. Ct.  655
                                _______     _____________

          (1994).  I reach this conclusion for primarily two reasons.

                    First,  Ratzlaf  held  that   in  order  to  sustain  a
                            _______

          conviction  for  "structuring"  under  31 U.S.C.     5324(3)  the

          government  must prove  that the  defendant acted  with knowledge

          that  his  conduct  was   unlawful.    In  my  view,   the  clear

          implication, if  not the plain  language, of Ratzlaf  precludes a
                                                       _______

          structuring conviction based on  the "reckless disregard"  theory

          utilized  in this  case.   Second, in  denying the  petition, the

          majority virtually ignores  the fact that our  decision in United
                                                                     ______

          States v. Aversa, 984 F.2d 493  (1st Cir. 1993) (en banc),  which
          ______    ______

          upheld  a reckless  disregard jury  instruction, was  vacated and

          remanded by the Supreme Court "for further consideration in light

          of"  Ratzlaf.   See  Donovan v.  United  States, 114  S. Ct.  873
               _______    ___  _______     ______________

          (1994).   Because the Court  had just decided  Ratzlaf, one would
                                                         _______

          think  that if  Aversa was  consistent with  that case  the Court
                          ______

          would  simply have  denied  the writ  of  certiorari.   The  most

          logical  inference from this state  of affairs is  that the Court

          viewed our pre-Ratzlaf decision in Aversa as contrary to Ratzlaf,
                         _______             ______                _______

          and wanted to give us a chance to remedy it.  We should do so.

                    Because  I  believe  the  panel  opinion  misinterprets

          settled  law, I  dissent  from the  denial  of the  petition  for

          rehearing or rehearing en banc.
                                 __ ____