Statutory Construction - Rule of Lenity

United States v. Santos, 128 S.Ct. 2020 (2008)

In a 4-1-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the term “proceeds” in § 1956 refers to “profits” and not gross receipts. Thus, in a gambling case, such as this case, the money that is paid to runners and other participants/employees of the gambling activity does not amount to a transaction in proceeds, because this money does not represent the profit of the gambling venture. Justice Stevens, who provided the fifth vote, limited the holding (perhaps) to cases in which the money is not derived from the sale of contraband. The decision relies principally on the Rule of Lenity.

United States v. Ashurov, 726 F.3d 395 (3rd Cir. 2013)

It is a crime under 18 U.S.C. §1546, to knowingly making a false statement under oath a document required by the immigration laws. It is also a crime “to knowingly present any such document which contains any such false statement.” This latter section is ambiguous regarding whether the document must be under oath. The word “such” suggests that the document must be under oath, but that second law only refers to a “false statement” being contained in the document. The Third Circuit, applying the Rule of Lenity, holds that the latter provision also requires proof that the document was made under oath.

United States v. Miller, 12-6501 (6th Cir. 2013)

The defendant, a partner in a real estate investment partnership applied for a loan and falsely stated that the other partners had authorized the loan. This was false. Nevertheless, this did not constitute the crime of identity theft. The identity theft statute requires that the defendant “use” the identifying information to commit a crime (including making a false statement to a bank). The Sixth Circuit, however, relying on the Rule of Lenity, concluded that “use” requires that the defendant falsely claim to be the other person, not simply to lie about the other person’s agreement.

United States v. Izurieta, 710 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2013)

The Eleventh Circuit analyzed a provision of the law that makes it a crime to import goods into United States “contrary to law.” 18 U.S.C. § 545. The question the court confronted was “What does ‘contrary to law’ mean?” The government claimed that the violation of any statute or regulation that governs importing goods is a sufficient foundation for a criminal prosecution. The Eleventh Circuit, however, rejected this broad approach and held that in order to support a criminal prosecution, there must be a showing that Congress intended that a violation of the particular regulation would support a criminal prosecution. Where it is clear that a regulation was designed only to establish civil obligations and penalties, it may not be used to support a criminal prosecution.

United States v. Costello, 666 F.3d 1040 (7th Cir. 2012)

The girlfriend of an illegal alien was not guilty of harboring under § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) simply by virtue of the fact the alien/boyfriend lived in her apartment. There was no evidence that she concealed the boyfriend, or shielded him from detection. The court spends considerable time discussing the definition of the word “harboring” and concludes that it means more than simply providing a place to live. Various dictionaries were consulted, as well as Google in this endeavor to figure out the meaning of the word.

United States v. Introcaso, 506 F.3d 260 (3rd Cir. 2007)

Firearms, such as short-barreled shotguns, that were manufactured prior to 1900, are not covered by the registration act, if the ammunition designed for that weapon is not being manufactured, nor is readily available. The government argued in this case that the ammunition designed for that weapon is not being manufactured, but regular (and easily available) twelvegauge shells worked with this particular gun. The Third Circuit held that the statute was ambiguous – it was not clear if the exemption only applied if the ammunition originally designed for the weapon was not available, or if any ammunition that could be used with the weapon was not available. Applying the Rule of Lenity, the court held that the conviction could not be sustained.