United States v. Bekir Buluc, 930 F.3d 383

Bekir Buluc, a Turkish national with prior removal problems, was escorted by ICE officers to a commercial flight for deportation; he told officers he would resist boarding.
At the airport Buluc refused to exit the vehicle, was pulled out, searched, and physically resisted officers as they tried to carry him to the plane.
Turkish Airlines personnel witnessed the disturbance and refused to permit Buluc to board; after learning this Buluc stopped resisting and was returned to detention.
Buluc was indicted under 8 U.S.C. § 1253(a)(1)(C) for ‘‘connives or conspires, or takes any other action, designed to prevent or hamper’’ removal.
At trial Buluc moved for acquittal arguing that §1253(a)(1)(C) requires joint action (relying on ejusdem generis and noscitur a sociis) and objected under the Confrontation Clause to officers’ testimony that the airline denied boarding.
The district court denied acquittal and overruled the Confrontation Clause objections; the jury convicted Buluc and he appealed.

Issue	Buluc's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether "takes any other action" in §1253(a)(1)(C) is limited to joint/concerted acts	"Takes any other action" must be read in light of adjacent verbs "connives or conspires," so it requires joint action	The phrase is a separate, broad category; canons do not apply because the structure is disjunctive and commas show independent meaning	Court: phrase is not limited to joint action; a solo actor can be guilty under §1253(a)(1)(C)
Whether officers’ testimony about airline refusing boarding violated the Confrontation Clause	Testimony relaying airline representative’s refusal was admission of an out-of-court statement and Buluc had no chance to cross-examine the airline rep	The airline rep’s statement was non-testimonial (made amid an ongoing, informal airport encounter); in any event any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt	Court: no Confrontation Clause violation; even assuming error, it was harmless given other strong evidence of resistance

Ali v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 552 U.S. 214 (discussing limits on ejusdem generis and when disjunctive phrasing precludes the canon)
Circuit City Stores v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (explaining application of ejusdem generis to lists followed by catchall phrases)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause bars testimonial out-of-court statements absent cross-examination)
Ohio v. Clark, 135 S. Ct. 2173 (distinguishing testimonial from non-testimonial statements based on primary purpose)
Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (primary-purpose test for testimonial statements)
Graham County Soil & Water Conservation Dist. v. United States ex rel. Wilson, 559 U.S. 280 (warning against reading statutory language out of its independent meaning)
United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576 (refusing ejusdem generis where categories are independent)