F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PU BL ISH
August 7, 2006
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
U N ITED STA TES O F A M ER ICA,
Plaintiff-A ppellee,
No. 05-1313
v.
JUANITA S. GONZA LES,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado
(D.C. No. 04-CR-257-DBS)
Submitted on the briefs.
Raymond P. M oore, Federal Public Defender, W arren R. W illiamson, Assistant
Federal Public D efender, Denver, Colorado, for D efendant-Appellant.
W illiam J. Leone, United States Attorney, Linda A. M cM ahan, Assistant United
States A ttorney, John M . Hutchins, Assistant United States A ttorney, Denver,
Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before M U RPH Y, A ND ER SO N, and TYM KOVICH, Circuit Judges.
M U RPH Y, Circuit Judge.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, the panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is, therefore,
ordered submitted without oral argument.
I. Introduction
Defendant-Appellant Juanita Gonzales, a former postal service employee,
was charged in the United States D istrict Court for the District of Colorado with
two counts of embezzling, stealing, abstracting, or removing the contents of mail
entrusted to her, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1709. At trial, Gonzales tendered a
proposed jury instruction which would have required the government to prove she
removed the contents of mail w ith intent to convert the contents to her own use.
The district court refused to give the instruction, and the jury convicted Gonzales
on both counts. Gonzales appealed. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1291. Because violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1709 by removing the contents
of m ail does not require intent to convert the contents to one’s own use, we
affirm.
II. Background
Gonzales was a United States Postal Service mail carrier in Arvada,
Colorado. A postal inspector sent a random test letter to a fictitious address on
Gonzales’ route. The letter contained a questionnaire which, if completed and
returned to the sender, promised two free movie tickets. Pursuant to postal
-2-
service procedures, the letter should have been returned immediately to the
sender. Gonzales, however, opened the envelope, completed the questionnaire,
and then returned it to the sender, an undercover post office box maintained by
the postal inspector. The postal inspector sent Gonzales two, $10 movie gift
cards and then prepared to send three more test letters.
The first test letter was a package marked “free camera” that contained a
disposable camera. The package was sent to a nonexistent address on Gonzales’
route. The second test letter was a charitable contribution envelope containing
$25 and marked “gift enclosed.” The envelope appeared as if it was being
returned to the sender, and the sender was someone on Gonzales’ route who had
recently moved. The third test letter was an envelope identical to the one
Gonzales had previously received containing the two movie gift cards. This test
letter also contained a $10 movie gift card and was addressed to John Calhoun, a
person on Gonzales’ route who had recently moved without leaving a forwarding
address. The postal inspector placed a beeper inside this last envelope that would
trigger an alarm when the envelope was opened and its contents removed.
The test items were placed into Gonzales’ mail to be delivered. Gonzales
followed proper procedure with regard to the camera package and charitable
contribution envelope by giving them to a processing clerk before she left the post
office. Gonzales took the movie gift card envelope with her on her route. After
finishing her route, G onzales parked her postal vehicle behind a shopping mall to
-3-
sort through her undeliverable mail. W hile she was in the parking lot, the
transmitter in the envelope containing the movie gift card emitted an alarm,
indicating the letter had been opened. Postal inspectors, who had been
conducting surveillance on Gonzales throughout the day, approached Gonzales
and asked her to exit her vehicle. The inspectors found the envelope containing
the movie gift card in Gonzales’ vehicle; it had been opened and the contents
removed. During a subsequent interview, Gonzales admitted to opening the
envelope and signed a sworn statement to that effect. Gonzales told the
inspectors she opened the envelope because she wanted to obtain additional
information about an identical letter she had received earlier. She also indicated
money was tight for her as a single mother and that her children liked to go to
movies. After further questioning, Gonzales admitted to opening a second piece
of undeliverable mail containing a $10 coupon for Victoria’s Secret. Gonzales
retrieved the Victoria’s Secret coupon from her purse and turned it over to the
inspectors.
Gonzales was charged in a two-count indictment with violating 18 U.S.C. §
1709. Section 1709 prohibits postal service employees from embezzling, stealing,
abstracting, or removing the contents of mail entrusted to them. Count 1 of the
indictment charged Gonzales with embezzling, stealing, abstracting, or removing
the movie gift card from the Calhoun letter. Count 2 charged her with
-4-
embezzling, stealing, abstracting, or removing the Victoria’s Secret coupon.
Gonzales was not charged in connection with the original test letter.
At trial, Gonzales did not contest the fact that she opened both letters.
Instead, her trial strategy focused on the intent element of § 1709. Gonzales
argued that violation of § 1709 by any of the alternative means enumerated in the
statute— embezzling, stealing, abstracting, or removing— required a felonious
intent to convert the contents of the letter to one’s own use. Specifically,
Gonzales contended she did not violate the statute merely by removing the
contents of the letters. In furtherance of this interpretation of the statute,
Gonzales presented evidence suggesting she opened the Calhoun letter because it
was identical to an envelope she had received earlier containing movie gift cards.
She argued she merely was attempting to obtain further information about the
source and nature of the earlier letter, and that she intended to return the letter to
its sender as undeliverable after she perused its contents. 1
Gonzales requested the district court to instruct the jury that, to find her
guilty of removing the contents of mail, it must find beyond a reasonable doubt
that she removed the contents of the letters w ith intent to convert the contents to
her own use. The district court declined to give Gonzales’ proposed instruction.
1
Gonzales did not present any similar evidence with respect to the envelope
containing the Victoria’s Secret coupon. Instead, she argued the envelope would
have been discarded in the trash once she returned it to the post office processing
clerk because it was an undeliverable, standard-rate letter.
-5-
It concluded intent to convert the contents of a letter to one’s own use is not an
element of removing the contents of mail under § 1709. Instead, the district court
instructed the jury that the government must prove, inter alia, Gonzales
“knowingly either (a) embezzled the letters or other mail matter identified in
Counts One and Two of the Indictment that had come into her possession as a
result of her employment or (b) stole or removed from the letters, as described in
Counts One and Two of the Indictment.” The district court instructed the jurors
that they must agree unanimously as to the method by which Gonzales committed
the offense. It also defined the terms “embezzle” and “knowingly.” 2
The jury returned a verdict, finding Gonzales guilty on both counts. She
was sentenced to three years’ probation for each count, with the sentences to run
concurrently.
III. Discussion
Gonzales argues the district court erred in refusing to give her proposed
instruction, which would have required the jury to find she removed the contents
of the letters w ith intent to convert them to her own use. Gonzales claims that to
violate § 1709 by removing the contents of mail, a defendant must possess the
specific, felonious intent to convert the contents to her own use. Because the
2
The instruction stated, “[t]he term “know ingly,” as used in these
instructions to describe the alleged state of mind of the defendant, means that she
was conscious and aware of her actions, realized what she was doing or what was
happening around her, and did not act because of ignorance, mistake, or
accident.”
-6-
district court refused to give her tendered instruction, Gonzales contends the jury
was permitted to find her guilty even if it believed she opened the Calhoun letter
merely to obtain further information and intended to return it to the processing
clerk after examining its contents. Such a finding, Gonzales argues, does not
support a conviction under § 1709.
A district court’s refusal to give a requested jury instruction is reviewed for
an abuse of discretion. United States v. Crockett, 435 F.3d 1305, 1314 (10th Cir.
2006). In assessing whether the district court properly exercised its discretion,
we review the instructions de novo to determine whether, taken as a whole, they
accurately state the governing law. Id. “A defendant is entitled to an instruction
on [her] theory of the case if the instruction is a correct statement of the law, and
if [she] has offered sufficient evidence for the jury to find in [her] favor.” Id.
W hether removal of the contents of mail in violation of § 1709 requires the
specific, felonious intent to convert the contents to one’s own use is an issue of
first impression in this circuit. 3 As with any question of statutory interpretation,
3
Two circuits have addressed the issue. See United States v. W illiams, No.
86-5183, 1989 W L 90198, at *2 n.2 (9th Cir. Aug. 7, 1989) (unpublished
disposition) (stating, without discussion or analysis, that a felonious intent to
convert the property of another to one’s own use is an element of § 1709); United
States v. Greene, 468 F.2d 920, 920 (4th Cir. 1972) (adopting, without discussion,
district court’s opinion, which concluded that violation of § 1709 by stealing,
abstracting, or removing the contents of mail does not require specific, felonious
intent).
-7-
we begin with the text. United States v. Ortiz, 427 F.3d 1278, 1282 (10th Cir.
2005). Section 1709 provides:
W hoever, being a Postal Service officer or employee, embezzles any
letter, postal card, package, bag, or mail, or any article or thing
contained therein entrusted to him or which comes into his
possession intended to be conveyed by mail, or carried or delivered
by any carrier, messenger, agent, or other person employed in any
department of the Postal Service, or forwarded through or delivered
from any post office or station thereof established by authority of the
Postmaster General or of the Postal Service; or steals, abstracts, or
removes from any such letter, package, bag, or mail, any article or
thing contained therein, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than five years, or both.
18 U.S.C. § 1709. The statute creates a single statutory offense that can be
comm itted by alternative means. A defendant can violate the statute by
embezzling a letter or the contents of a letter, or by stealing, abstracting, or
removing the contents of a letter. Gonzales argues that to violate the statute by
removing the contents of mail a defendant must intend to convert the contents to
her own use. This interpretation, however, is not supported by the plain text of
the statute. The statute criminalizes the removal of any article or thing contained
in a letter, package, bag, or mail without any express requirement of specific
intent.
Additionally, the term “remove” itself does not connote any such intent.
W hen a statute does not specifically define a term, we construe the term in accord
with its ordinary or natural meaning. Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223, 228
(1993). “Remove” means “to move or shift from or out of the place occupied.”
-8-
Oxford English Dictionary (2d ed. 1989). Thus, according to its ordinary
meaning, the term “remove” does not encompass any intent to convert the
removed item to one’s own use. 4
Gonzales points out that the term “steals” precedes the term “removes” in §
1709. Gonzales argues we should give these grouped terms related meanings, and
thus, read “removes” to require the same specific, felonious intent as “steals.”
Gonzales asserts “it is highly unlikely that Congress intended to intermingle
crimes requiring a felonious intent with those that do not require such intent
without both making a more obvious distinction and providing a lesser penalty for
the latter crimes.” United States v. Rush, 551 F. Supp. 148, 151 (D . Iowa 1982).
Gonzales’ reading of the statute, however, ignores the inclusion of the term “or”
between “steals” and “removes.” The use of the disjunctive “or” indicates
“steals” and “removes” are to have different meanings. See United States v.
O’D riscoll, 761 F.2d 589, 597–98 (10th Cir. 1985). Because stealing the contents
of mail requires felonious intent, removing the contents of mail should not be
interpreted to require the same intent. Otherwise the term “or” in the statute
would be superfluous. See Finley v. United States, 123 F.3d 1342, 1347 (10th
4
W hen a federal criminal statute uses a common law term of established
meaning without otherwise defining it, the term is given its comm on law
meaning. M orissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 263 (1952). “Remove,”
however, has no accepted common law meaning. W e therefore construe the term
in accord with its ordinary meaning. United States v. Northway, 120 U.S. 327,
334 (1887).
-9-
Cir. 1997) (noting every word in a statute should be given operative effect).
Additionally, if “steals” and “removes” were both interpreted to require the same
felonious intent, there would be nothing to differentiate the crimes and inclusion
of both terms in the statute would be redundant. See Smith v. M idland Brake,
Inc., 180 F.3d 1154, 1161 (10th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (observing statutes will not
be construed in a way that renders a word redundant).
Because the plain, unambiguous language of § 1709 criminalizes removing
the contents of mail regardless of the defendant’s intended use of the contents, w e
need not examine the statute’s legislative history. Ortiz, 427 F.3d at 1282. W e
also cannot use the statute’s title, “[t]heft of mail matter by officer or employee,”
to limit the plain, unambiguous meaning of the term “removes” in the statute’s
text. See Pa. Dep’t of Corr. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 212 (1998). Further, we
note adherence to the plain text of the statute does not create an absurd result in
this case. See Robbins v. Chronister, 435 F.3d 1238, 1241 (10th Cir. 2006)
(discussing absurdity doctrine). Congress could have rationally determined it was
necessary to criminalize all means of tampering with mail by postal service
employees to protect the integrity of, and preserve the public confidence in, the
postal system. M oreover, in furtherance of this effort, it would not be
unreasonable for Congress to provide identical penalties for stealing and
embezzling the contents of mail, which require intent to take or convert to one’s
own use, and the mere removal of the contents of mail. See 18 U.S.C. § 1703
-10-
(providing identical penalty— up to five years’ imprisonment— for any postal
service employee who unlawfully opens a letter intended to be conveyed by mail).
In sum, to sustain a conviction under § 1709 for removing the contents of
mail, the government is not required to prove a defendant possessed the specific
intent to convert the contents to her own use. Thus, the district court’s refusal to
give Gonzales’ proposed instruction to the contrary was not error. Because the
district court informed the jury it was required to find Gonzales knowingly
embezzled, stole, or removed the contents of the letters to violate § 1709, the jury
instructions as a whole accurately and adequately stated the governing law.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district court did not err in refusing to give
Gonzales’ proposed jury instruction. W e therefore AFFIRM .
-11-