United States v. Harrell
2011 WL 906257
9th Cir.2011Background
- Harrell used another person's identity to access Washington Corrections Center, knowing she would be denied entry due to supervision for bank fraud.
- She fraudulently listed a false name, date of birth, and Social Security number on a visitor application and used a different ID card at the facility.
- Corrections officials linked her to a regular visitor on supervision and confronted her; she admitted her true identity and prior drug-smuggling into the facility.
- On January 6, 2010, grand jury indicted Harrell on three counts: SSN fraud (42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B)), aggravated identity theft (§ 1028A), and possession of ammunition as a felon (§ 922(g)).
- Harrell moved to dismiss the § 1028A count; the district court denied; she pled guilty to § 408(a)(7)(B) and § 1028A under a conditional plea, reserving the right to appeal the denial.
- On appeal, the central question is whether § 1028A(c)(11)’s 'relating to' parentheticals limit the predicate offenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 'relating to' parentheticals limit §1028A(c)(11). | Harrell argues they function as a limiting clause. | Government argues they are descriptive aids, not limiting. | Descriptive, not limiting. |
| Whether treating 'relating to' as descriptive avoids rendering other provisions meaningless. | Harrell contends limiting would render §1307(b) superfluous. | Government maintains descriptive reading preserves statute coherence. | Descriptive reading preserves consistency; counts affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Persichilli, 608 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2010) (parentheticals are descriptive, not limiting)
- United States v. Galindo-Gallegos, 244 F.3d 728 (9th Cir. 2001) (relating to language descriptive; avoids scrivener's error)
- United States v. Cabaccang, 332 F.3d 622 (9th Cir. 2003) (interpretation as a whole; give effect to all words)
- United States v. Shabani, 513 U.S. 10 (1994) (rule of lenity applies only when statute is ambiguous)
- Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson, 525 U.S. 432 (1999) (statutory language alone controls when clear)
- United States v. Gonzales, 520 U.S. 1 (1997) (rejects use of legislative history when statutory command is clear)