United States v. Harris

¶4LAY, Circuit Judge.

¶5The defendant Marcus James Harris appeals from his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 31501 for willfully failing, while on bond, to appear as required, before “a court or judicial officer.”2

¶6In April 1973, following a plea of not guilty, the defendant was tried and convict*949ed under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A) for knowingly and intentionally distributing heroin. On May 3,1973, the defendant was sentenced by the district court to eight years imprisonment with an additional special parole term of three years. A $5,000 surety appeal bond was set by the court. Harris’ conviction was affirmed by this court in December 1973, United States v. Harris, 488 F.2d 867 (8th Cir. 1973), and the mandate of this court issued.

¶7Pursuant to a standing order of the district court for the Southern District of Iowa,3 the clerk directed Harris to surrender to the United States Marshal at Des Moines, Iowa, before noon on the 18th of January 1974. The defendant asserted at trial and on appeal that the court ordered him to appear before the United States Marshal, and that that official does not come within the purview of the definition of a “judicial officer” under the Bail Reform Act.4 We agree that a “judicial officer,” within the meaning of § 3150, means any federal judge or magistrate. However, for reasons stated below, we affirm the conviction.

¶8We join the Fourth and Fifth Circuits in holding that failure to appear before a United States Marshal, “as required,” constitutes a failure to appear before the court in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3150. United States v. Logan, 505 F.2d 35 (5th Cir. 1974);5United States v. West, 477 F.2d 1056 (4th Cir. 1973). The Fourth Circuit, in West, stated:

The essence of the crime of bail jumping is willful failure to appear before “any court or judicial officer as required.” As a condition of defendant’s bond, the court ordered him to report to the United States Marshal at a specific time to begin serving his sentence. An unnecessary waste of judicial time and energy would result if we were to require that each person in West’s position appear before the court itself. No discretionary action at all is involved.

¶9477 F.2d at 1058.

¶10In adopting this reasoning we reject the contrary holding of the district court of the Western District of Missouri in United States v. Wray, 369 F.Supp. 118 (W.D.Mo.1973). It is, of course, a settled principle of statutory construction that criminal statutes are to be strictly construed and that ambiguity or doubt concerning the scope of the statutes is to be resolved in favor of the defendant. Wray, supra,369 F.Supp. at 125. However, gener*950al rules of construction cannot be used to ignore the statute’s manifest purpose. The obvious intent of Congress under 18 U.S.C. § 3150 was to provide sanctions against “bail jumping.” One released on bail under the Bail Reform Act is under the continuing jurisdiction of the district court. The court clearly has the power to designate the time and place for the defendant to report, and to designate the United States Marshal as the agent of the court for the limited purpose of taking the defendant into custody. Under 28 U.S.C. § 569(b), the United States Marshal is given authority to carry out all lawful orders issued to him by a United States court. The mere fact that the court directs the defendant to appear before its designated agent, the United States Marshal, rather than before the judicial officer making the order, does not obviate sanctions under the Act.

¶11Harris willfully disobeyed the lawful order of the court. There was no mystery that he was required to report to the United States Marshal as the designated agent of the United States District Court. Cf. Gant v. United States, 506 F.2d 518 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 1005, 95 S.Ct. 1449, 43 L.Ed.2d 764 (1975); and United States v. Wetzel, 514 F.2d 175 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 844, 96 S.Ct. 80, 46 L.Ed.2d 65 (1975).

¶12The judgment is affirmed.