U.S. v. James, 87-5061
| Decision Date | 24 November 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-5061,87-5061 |
| Citation | 834 F.2d 92 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Adrian M. JAMES, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Henry E. Hudson, U.S. Atty. (William G. Otis, John T. Martin, Asst. U.S. Attys., Alexandria, Va., on brief), for plaintiff-appellant.
Christopher Paul Schewe, Alexandria, Va., for defendant-appellee.
Before SPROUSE and CHAPMAN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Adrian M. James was indicted in count 1 for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(a)(1), and in count 2 for carrying a firearm during a crime of drug trafficking in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c), which mandates a five-year sentence for carrying a firearm during a crime of drug trafficking. Section 924(c)(2) defines a "drug trafficking crime" as "any felony violation of federal law involving the distribution, manufacture, or importation of any controlled substance." Ruling that possession of cocaine with intent to distribute is not a "drug trafficking crime" within the meaning of Sec. 924(c), the district court dismissed the second count of the indictment before trial. James was subsequently convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute as charged in count 1. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3731, the government appeals from the order dismissing count 2. Because we find possession with intent to distribute to be a crime "involving" distribution, we reverse the order of the district court and direct that count 2 be reinstated.
The district court found in the legislative history of Sec. 924(c) "no indication that Congress intended to include possession of a controlled substance within its coverage." Possession with intent to distribute, the court believed, was essentially a possession offense, and thus outside Congress's intended reach.
Our analysis begins with the plain words of the statute. If the terms of this statute are unambiguous on their face, or in light of ordinary principles of statutory interpretation, then "judicial inquiry is complete," Rubin v. United States, 449 U.S. 424, 430, 101 S.Ct. 698, 701, 66 L.Ed.2d 633 (1981); there is no need to consult legislative history nor to look to the "rule of lenity" that is applied in construing ambiguous criminal statutes.
We hold that Sec. 924(c) by its terms unambiguously applies to crimes of possession with intent to distribute. It is a commonplace rule of interpretation that, wherever reasonably possible, a statute should be interpreted so as to give some effect to each clause and word. In this case, we believe that violations "involving" the distribution, manufacture, or importation of controlled...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Action NC v. Strach, 1:15-cv-1063
...As a general rule, when the terms of a statute are unambiguous on their face, then the court's inquiry is complete, United States v. James , 834 F.2d 92, 92 (4th Cir. 1987), and the court must enforce the statute according to its terms, Jimenez , 555 U.S. at 118, 129 S.Ct. 681. "Only if [th......
-
United States v. Fields
...Cir. 2003) (attempted drug crime). (The Fourth Circuit reached a similar result for similar statutory language. See United States v. James , 834 F.2d 92, 93 (4th Cir. 1987).)As the majority opinion rightly notes, other courts have begun to cite Shular 's "necessarily require" or "necessaril......
-
United States v. Fields
...Cir. 2003) (attempted drug crime). (The Fourth Circuit reached a similar result for similar statutory language. See United States v. James , 834 F.2d 92, 93 (4th Cir. 1987).)As the majority opinion rightly notes, other courts have begun to cite Shular ’s "necessarily require" or "necessaril......
-
Giles v. United States
...intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) is a "drug trafficking crime" pursuant to § 924(c). See United States v. James, 834 F.2d 92, 92-93 (4th Cir. 1987) ("§ 924(c) by its terms unambiguously applies to crimes of possession with intent to distribute"). Petitioner's argum......