author:
Justice Thomas
      Justice Ginsburg, Justice Stevens,

text:
    UNITED STATES v. ALVAREZ-SANCHEZ
    No. 92-1812.
    Argued March 1, 1994
    Decided May 2, 1994

      Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Blackmun, O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Ginsburg, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Blackmun, J., joined, post, p. 361. Stevens, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 361.

      Miguel A. Estrada argued the cause for the United States. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Days, Assistant Attorney General Harris, and Deputy Solicitor General Bryson.

      Carlton F. Gunn argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.
   Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case concerns the scope of 18 U. S. C. §3501, the statute governing the admissibility of confessions in federal prosecutions. Respondent contends that § 3501(c), which provides that a custodial confession made by a person within six hours following his arrest “shall not be inadmissible solely because of delay in bringing such person” before a federal magistrate, rendered inadmissible the custodial statement he made more than six hours after his arrest on state criminal charges. We conclude, however, that § 3501(c) does not apply to statements made by a person who is being held solely on state charges. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

I

On Friday, August 5, 1988, officers of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department obtained a warrant to search respondent’s residence for heroin and other evidence of narcotics distribution. While executing the warrant later that day, the officers discovered not only narcotics, but $2,260 in counterfeit Federal Reserve Notes. Respondent was arrested and booked on state felony narcotics charges at approximately 5:40 p.m. He spent the weekend in custody.

On Monday morning, August 8, the Sheriff’s Department informed the United States Secret Service of the counterfeit currency found in respondent’s residence. Two Secret Service agents arrived at the Sheriff’s Department shortly before midday to take possession of the currency and to interview respondent. Using a deputy sheriff as an interpreter, the agents informed respondent of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966). After waiving these rights, respondent admitted that he had known that the currency was counterfeit. The agents arrested respondent shortly thereafter, took him to the Secret Service field office for booking, and prepared a criminal complaint. Due to congestion in the Federal Magistrate’s docket, respondent was not presented on the federal complaint until the following day.

Respondent was indicted for unlawful possession of counterfeit currency in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 472. Prior to trial, he moved to suppress the statement he had made during his interview with the Secret Service agents. He argued that his confession was made without a voluntary and knowing waiver of his Miranda rights, and that the delay between his arrest on state charges and his presentment on the federal charge rendered his confession inadmissible under 18 U. S. C. § 3501(c). The District Court rejected both contentions and denied the motion. Respondent subsequently was convicted after a jury trial at which the statement was admitted into evidence.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the conviction. 975 F. 2d 1396 (1992). The court first outlined the exclusionary rule developed by this Court in a line of cases including McNabb v. United States, 318 U. S. 332 (1943), and Mallory v. United States, 354 U. S. 449 (1957). The so-called McNabb-Mallory rule, adopted by this Court “[i]n the exercise of its supervisory authority over the administration of criminal justice in the federal courts,” McNabb, supra, at 341, generally rendered inadmissible confessions made during periods of detention that violated the prompt presentment requirement of Rule 5(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. See Mallory, supra, at 453. Rule 5(a) provides that a person arrested for a federal offense shall be taken “without unnecessary delay” before the nearest federal magistrate, or before a state or local judicial officer authorized to set bail for federal offenses under 18 U. S. C. § 3041, for a first appearance, or presentment.

The Ninth Circuit went on to discuss the interrelated provisions of 18 U. S. C. § 3501 and the decisions of the Courts of Appeals that have sought to discern the extent to which this statute curtailed the McNabb-Mallory rule. Section 3501(a), the court observed, states that a confession “shall be admitted in evidence” if voluntarily made, and § 3501(b) lists several nonexclusive factors that the trial judge should consider when making the voluntariness determination, including “the time elapsing between arrest and arraignment of the defendant making the confession, if it was made after arrest and before arraignment.” Section 3501(c) provides that a confession made by a person within six hours following his arrest or other detention “shall not be inadmissible” solely because of delay in presenting the person to a federal magistrate. The Ninth Circuit construed § 3501(c) as precluding suppression under McNabb-Mallory of any confession made during this “safe harbor” period following arrest. 975 F. 2d, at 1399. The court then reasoned that, by negative implication, § 3501(c) must in some circumstances allow suppression of a confession made more than six hours after arrest solely on the basis of pre-presentment delay, “regardless of the voluntariness of the confession.” Id., at 1401. The court thus concluded that the McNabb-Mallory rule, in either a pure or slightly modified form, applies to confessions made after the expiration of the safe harbor period.

Turning to the facts of the case before it, the court determined that § 3501(c) applied to respondent’s statement because respondent was in custody and had not been presented to a magistrate at the time of the interview. The court concluded that the statement fell outside the subsection’s safe harbor because it was not made until Monday afternoon, nearly three days after respondent’s arrest on state charges. 975 F. 2d, at 1405, and n. 8 (citing United States v. Fouche, 776 F. 2d 1398, 1406 (CA9 1985)). Because the statement was not made within the § 3501(c) safe harbor period, the court applied both its pure and modified versions of the McNabb-Mallory rule and held that, under either approach, the confession should have been suppressed. 975 F. 2d, at 1405-1406.

We granted the Government’s petition for a writ of certiorari in order to consider the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of §3501. 510 U. S. 912 (1993).

II

The parties argue at some length over the proper interpretation of subsections (a) and (c) of 18 U. S. C. §3501, and, in particular, over the question whether § 3501(c) requires suppression of a confession that is made by an arrestee prior to presentment and more than six hours after arrest, regardless of whether the confession was voluntarily made. The Government contends that through §3501, Congress repudiated the McNabb-Mallory rule in its entirety. Under this theory, § 3501(c) creates a safe harbor that prohibits suppression on grounds of pre-presentment delay if a confession is made within six hours following arrest, but says nothing about the admissibility of a confession given beyond that 6-hour period. The admissibility of such a confession, the Government argues, is controlled by § 3501(a), which provides that voluntary confessions “shall be admitted in evidence.”

Largely agreeing with the Ninth Circuit, respondent contends that § 3501(c) codified a limited form of the McNabbMallory rule — one that requires the suppression of a confession made before presentment but after the expiration of the safe harbor period. A contrary interpretation of § 3501(c), respondent argues, would render that subsection meaningless in the face of § 3501(a).

As the parties recognize, however, we need not address subtle questions of statutory construction concerning the safe harbor set out in § 3501(c), or resolve any tension between the provisions of that subsection and those of § 3501(a), if we determine that the terms of § 3501(c) were never triggered in this case. We turn, then, to that threshold inquiry.

When interpreting a statute, we look first and foremost to its text. Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Germain, 503 U. S. 249, 253-254 (1992). Section 3501(c) provides that in any federal criminal prosecution,

“a confession made or given by a person who is a defendant therein, while such person was under arrest or other detention in the custody of any law-enforcement officer or law-enforcement agency, shall not be inadmissible solely because of delay in bringing such person before a magistrate or other officer empowered to commit persons charged with offenses against the laws of the United States or of the District of Columbia if such confession is found by the trial judge to have been made voluntarily and if... such confession was made or given by such person within six hours immediately following his arrest or other detention.”

Respondent contends that he was under “arrest or other detention” for purposes of § 3501(c) during the interview at the Sheriff’s Department, and that his statement to the Secret Service agents constituted a confession governed by this subsection. In respondent’s view, it is irrelevant that he was in the custody of the local authorities, rather than that of the federal agents, when he made the statement. Because the statute applies to persons in the custody of “any” law enforcement officer or law enforcement agency, respondent suggests that the § 3501(c) 6-hour time period begins to run whenever a person is arrested by local, state, or federal officers.

We believe respondent errs in placing dispositive weight on the broad statutory reference to “any” law enforcement officer or agency without considering the rest of the statute. Section 3501(c) provides that, if certain conditions are met, a confession made by a person under “arrest or other detention” shall not be inadmissible in a subsequent federal prosecution “solely because of delay in bringing such person before a magistrate or other officer empowered to commit persons charged with offenses against the laws of the United States or of the District of Columbia.” 18 U. S. C. § 3501(c) (emphasis added). Clearly, the terms of the subsection can apply only when there is some “delay” in presentment. Because “delay” is not defined in the statute, we must construe the term “in accordance with its ordinary or natural meaning.” FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U. S. 471,476 (1994). To delay is “[t]o postpone until a later time” or to “put off an action”; a delay is a “postponement.” American Heritage Dictionary 493 (3d ed. 1992). The term presumes an obligation to act. Thus, there can be no “delay” in bringing a person before a federal magistrate until, at a minimum, there is some obligation to bring the person before such a judicial officer in the first place. Plainly, a duty to present a person to a federal magistrate does not arise until the person has been arrested for a federal offense. See Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 5(a) (requiring initial appearance before a federal magistrate). Until a person is arrested or detained for a federal crime, there is no duty, obligation, or reason to bring him before a judicial officer “empowered to commit persons charged with offenses against the laws of the United States,” and therefore, no “delay” under § 3501(c) can occur.

In short, it is evident “from the context in which [the phrase] is used,” Deal v. United States, 508 U. S. 129, 132 (1993), that the “arrest or other detention” of which the subsection speaks must be an “arrest or other detention” for a violation of federal law. If a person is arrested and held on a federal charge by “any” law enforcement officer — federal, state, or local — that person is under “arrest or other detention” for purposes of § 3501(c) and its 6-hour safe harbor period. If, instead, the person is arrested and held on state charges, § 3501(c) does not apply, and the safe harbor is not implicated. This is true even if the arresting officers (who, when the arrest is for a violation of state law, almost certainly will be agents of the State or one of its subdivisions) believe or have cause to believe that the person also may have violated federal law. Such a belief, which may not be uncommon given that many activities are criminalized under both state and federal law, does not alter the underlying basis for the arrest and subsequent custody. As long as a person is arrested and held only on state charges by state or local authorities, the provisions of § 3501(c) are not triggered.

In this case, respondent was under arrest on state narcotics charges at the time he made his inculpatory statement to the Secret Service agents. The terms of § 3501(c) thus did not come into play until respondent was arrested by the agents on a federal charge — after he made the statement. Because respondent’s statement was made voluntarily, as the District Court found, see App. to Pet. for Cert. 45a, nothing in § 3501 authorized its suppression. See 18 U. S. C. §§ 3501(a), (d). The State’s failure to arraign or prosecute respondent does not alter this conclusion. Although Congress could have provided that the exercise of prosecutorial discretion by the State in this scenario retroactively transforms time spent in the custody of state or local officers into time spent under “arrest or other detention” for purposes of § 3501(e), it did not do so in the statute as written. Cf. Ger-main, 503 U. S., at 253-254.

Although we think proper application of § 3501(c) will be as straightforward in most cases as it is here, the parties identify one presumably rare scenario that might present some potential for confusion; namely, the situation that would arise if state or local authorities, acting in collusion with federal officers, were to arrest and detain someone in order to allow the federal agents to interrogate him in violation of his right to a prompt federal presentment. Long before the enactment of §3501, we held that a confession obtained during such a period of detention must be suppressed if the defendant could demonstrate the existence of improper collaboration between federal and state or local officers. See Anderson v. United States, 318 U. S. 350 (1943). In this case, however, we need not address §350rs effect, if any, on the rule announced in Anderson. The District Court concluded that there was “no evidence” that a “collusive arrangement between state and federal agents . .. caused [respondent’s] confession to be made,” App. to Pet. for Cert. 50a, and we see no reason to disturb that factual finding. It is true that the Sheriff’s Department informed the Secret Service agents that counterfeit currency had been found in respondent’s possession, but such routine cooperation between local and federal authorities is, by itself, wholly unobjectionable: “Only by such an interchange of information can society be adequately protected against crime.” United States v. Coppola, 281 F. 2d 340, 344 (CA2 1960) (en banc), aff’d, 365 U. S. 762 (1961). Cf. Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U. S. 121, 123 (1959).

Ill

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

So ordered.

Justice Ginsburg,

with whom Justice Blackmun joins,

concurring.

When Alvarez-Sanchez was arrested by the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, 18 U. S. C. § 3501(c) was not triggered. As the Court explains, an arrest by state or local law enforcement authorities on state criminal charges is not an “arrest or other detention” within the meaning of § 3501(c), and there is no evidence in this case of any “improper collaboration,” ante, at 359, or “working arrangement,” Anderson v. United States, 318 U. S. 350, 356 (1943), between local and federal authorities. See ante, at 357-360, and n. 4. I write separately only to emphasize that we do not decide today a question on which the Courts of Appeals remain divided: the effect of § 3501(c) on confessions obtained more than six hours after an arrest on federal charges. See ante, at 356,359-360.

Justice Stevens,

concurring in the judgment.

The Court holds that § 3501(c) “does not apply to statements made by a person who is being held solely on state charges.” Ante, at 352. While I agree with the Court’s answer to the narrow question the petition for certiorari presents, I write separately to emphasize the importance of the factual premise underlying that answer.

As the case comes to us, it is undisputed that respondent confessed while he was being held on state charges alone. 975 F. 2d 1396, 1398 (CA9 1992). Accepting that, the Court of Appeals held that the confession nevertheless must be suppressed because it read the phrase “detention in the custody of any law-enforcement officer or law-enforcement agency” in 18 U. S. C. § 3501(c) to include custody solely on state charges. 975 F. 2d, at 1405. The Court of Appeals therefore had no occasion to consider whether the state police officers’ awareness of respondent’s probable involvement in two federal crimes might indicate that the state charges were not the sole basis for his detention.

In its petition for certiorari the Government correctly advised us that “[Reversal of the Ninth Circuit’s erroneous conclusion that the relevant arrest was effected by California authorities will obviate the need to consider” additional issues. Pet. for Cert. 13. Accordingly, what sort of cooperation between federal and local authorities would remove a case from the category in which the custody is decidedly on state charges alone is a question not before us, and the Court correctly declines to address the matter. Surely, however, cases in which cooperation between state and federal authorities requires compliance with the terms of § 3501(c) are not merely hypothetical examples of a “presumably rare scenario,” ante, at 359. And I definitely would not assume that § 3501(c) will never “come into play” until a suspect is arrested on a federal charge. Ibid.

The Court also has no reason to comment on the District Court’s finding that respondent’s confession was not the product of collusion between state and federal agents. Ante, at 360. The Court of Appeals’ construction of the statute made review of that finding unnecessary. Thus while the Court rightly declines to “disturb” the factual finding, ibid., it should likewise stop short of suggesting that anyone on this Court has determined that the finding is either correct or incorrect.

For these reasons, I concur in the Court’s judgment but do not join its opinion.

       For reasons that are not apparent from the record, respondent was never arraigned or prosecuted by the State of California on the state drug charges.

       Title 18 U. S. C. §3501 provides:
      “(a) In any criminal prosecution brought by the United States or by the District of Columbia, a confession, as defined in subsection (e) hereof, shall be admissible in evidence if it is voluntarily given. Before such confession is received in evidence, the trial judge shall, out of the presence of the jury, determine any issue as to voluntariness. If the trial judge determines that the confession was voluntarily made it shall be admitted in evidence ....
      “(b) The trial judge in determining the issue of voluntariness shall take into consideration all the circumstances surrounding the giving of the confession, including (1) the time elapsing between arrest and arraignment of the defendant making the confession, if it was made after arrest and before arraignment....
      “The presence or absence of any of the above-mentioned factors to be taken into consideration by the judge need not be conclusive on the issue of voluntariness of the confession.
      “(c) In any criminal prosecution by the United States or by the District of Columbia, a confession made or given by a person who is a defendant therein, while such person was under arrest or other detention in the custody of any law-enforcement officer or law-enforcement agency, shall not be inadmissible solely because of delay in bringing such person before a magistrate or other officer empowered to commit persons charged with offenses against the laws of the United States or of the District of Columbia if such confession is found by the trial judge to have been made voluntarily and if the weight to be given the confession is left to the jury and if such confession was made or given by such person within six hours immediately following his arrest or other detention: Provided, That the time limitation contained in this subsection shall not apply in any case in which the delay in bringing such person before such magistrate or other officer beyond such six-hour period is found by .the trial judge to be reasonable considering the means of transportation and the distance to be traveled to the nearest available such magistrate or other officer.
      “(d) Nothing contained in this section shall bar the admission in evidence of any confession made or given voluntarily by any person to any other person without interrogation by anyone, or at any time at which the person who made or gave such confession was not under arrest or other detention.
      “(e) As used in this section, the term ‘confession’ means any confession of guilt of any criminal offense or any self-incriminating statement made or given orally or in writing.”

       As we observed in Mallory v. United States, 354 U. S. 449 (1957), Rule 5(a) is part of “[t]he scheme for initiating a federal prosecution.” Id., at 454 (emphasis added).

       In Anderson, a local sheriff, acting without authority under state law, arrested several men suspected of dynamiting federally owned power lines during the course of a labor dispute and allowed them to be interrogated for several days by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Only after the suspects made confessions were they arrested by the federal agents and arraigned before a United States Commissioner. We held the confessions to be inadmissible as the “improperly” secured product of an impermissible “working arrangement” between state and federal officers. 318 U. S., at 356.

       Respondent urges that the judgment below should be affirmed on an alternative ground. Although he was initially arrested on state charges on a Friday afternoon and held in local custody until Monday afternoon, respondent was not brought before a magistrate during this period. In County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U. S. 44, 57 (1991), we held that the Fourth Amendment generally requires a judicial determination of probable cause within 48 hours of a warrantless arrest. Relying on McLaughlin and Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U. S. 103 (1975), respondent now asserts that his confession was obtained during an ongoing violation of his Fourth Amendment right to a prompt determination of probable cause. Respondent, however, did not raise a Fourth Amendment claim in the District Court or the Court of Appeals; he argued for suppression based only on the Fifth Amendment and § 3501. Finding no exceptional circumstances that would warrant reviewing a claim that was waived below, we adhere to our general practice and decline to address respondent’s Fourth Amendment argument. See Granfinanciera, S. A v. Nordberg, 492 U. S. 33, 38-39 (1989); Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U. S. 458, 468-469, n. 12 (1983).

      Compare, e. g., 975 F. 2d 1396, 1402-1403 (1992) (decision below), and United States v. Perez, 733 F. 2d 1026, 1031 (CA2 1984) (“[§]3501 leaves the McNabb-Mallory rule intact with regard to confessions obtained after a six hour delay not found to be reasonable”); United States v. Robinson, 439 F. 2d 553,563-664 (CADC 1970) (same), with United States v. Christopher, 956 F. 2d 536, 538-539 (CA6 1991) (under §3501, unnecessary delay of more than six hours, “standing alone, is not sufficient to justify the suppression of an otherwise voluntary confession”), cert, denied, 505 U. S. 1207 (1992); United States v. Beltran, 761 F. 2d 1, 8 (CA1 1985) (same).

       The question presented is “Whether a confession given to federal authorities while a suspect is in state custody awaiting arraignment on state charges must be suppressed as a result of delay between the suspect’s original arrest by state authorities and his eventual presentment on the federal crime to which he confessed.” Pet. for Cert. I.

       Los Angeles police officers took respondent into custody on a Friday. 975 F. 2d 1396,1397-1398 (CA9 1992). At the time of arrest, those officers discovered that respondent possessed two kinds of contraband — narcotics and counterfeit money, id., at 1398 — and they presumably realized that he was guilty of at least two federal offenses as well as the state-law violation for which he was arrested.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Per Curiam. Justice Stevens,

license: Public Domain

text:
    IN RE ANDERSON
    No. 93-8312.
    Decided May 2, 1994
   Per Curiam.

Pro se petitioner Grant Anderson seeks an extraordinary writ pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2241 and requests permission to proceed in forma pauperis under this Court’s Rule 39. Pursuant to Rule 39.8, we deny petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis Petitioner is allowed until May 23, 1994, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and to submit his petition in compliance with this Court’s Rule 33. For the reasons explained below, we also direct the Clerk of the Court not to accept any further petitions for extraordinary writs from petitioner unless he pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and submits his petitions in compliance with Rule 33.

Petitioner is a prolific filer in this Court. In the last three years alone, he has filed 22 separate petitions and motions, including 3 petitions for certiorari, 6 motions for reconsideration, and 13 petitions for extraordinary writs. Thirteen of these petitions and motions have been filed this Term. We have denied all of the petitions and motions without recorded dissent. We have also denied petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis, pursuant to Rule 39.8, on the last three occasions that he has submitted petitions for extraordinary relief.

Like the majority of his previous submissions to this Court, the instant petition for habeas corpus relates to the denial of petitioner’s various postconviction motions by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. The current petition merely repeats arguments that we have considered previously and not found worthy of plenary review. Like the three petitions in which we denied petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis, moreover, the instant petition is patently frivolous.

The bulk of petitioner’s submissions have been petitions for extraordinary writs, and we limit our sanction accordingly. We have imposed similar sanctions in three prior cases. See In re Demos, 500 U. S. 16 (1991); In re Sindram, 498 U. S. 177 (1991); In re McDonald, 489 U. S. 180 (1989). For the reasons discussed in these cases, we feel compelled to bar petitioner from filing any further requests for extraordinary relief. As we concluded in Sindram:

“The goal of fairly dispensing justice ... is compromised when the Court is forced to devote its limited resources to the processing of repetitious and frivolous requests. Pro se petitioners have a greater capacity than most to disrupt the fair allocation of judicial resources because they are not subject to the financial considerations — filing fees and attorney’s fees — that deter other litigants from filing frivolous petitions. The risks of abuse are particularly acute with respect to applications for extraordinary relief, since such petitions are not subject to any time limitations and, theoretically, could be filed at any time without limitation. In order to prevent frivolous petitions for extraordinary relief from unsettling the fair administration of justice, the Court has a duty to deny in forma pauperis status to those individuals who have abused the system.” 498 U. S., at 179-180 (citation omitted).

So long as petitioner qualifies under this Court’s Rule 39 and does not similarly abuse the privilege, he remains free to file in forma pauperis requests for relief other than an extraordinary writ. See id., at 180. In the meantime, however, today’s order “will allow this Court to devote its limited resources to the claims of petitioners who have not abused our process.” In re Sassower, 510 U. S. 4, 6 (1993).

It is so ordered.

Justice Stevens,

with whom Justice Blackmun joins,

dissenting.

During my years of service on the Court, I have not detected any threat to the integrity of its processes, or its ability to administer justice fairly, caused by frivolous petitions, whether filed by paupers or by affluent litigants. Three years ago I expressed the opinion that the cost of administering sanctions such as that imposed on this petitioner would exceed any perceptible administrative benefit. In re Amendment to Rule 39, 500 U. S. 13, 15 (1991). Any minimal savings in time or photocopying costs, it seemed to me, did not justify the damage that occasional orders denying in forma pauperis status would cause to “the symbolic interest in preserving equal access to the Court for both the rich and the poor.” Ibid. Three years’ experience under this Court’s Rule 39.8 leaves me convinced that the dissenters in the cases the Court cites had it right. See In re Demos, 500 U. S. 16, 17-19 (1991); In re Sindram, 498 U. S. 177, 180-183 (1991); In re McDonald, 489 U. S. 180, 185-188 (1989). See also Day v. Day, 510 U. S. 1, 3 (1993) (Stevens, J., dissenting). Again I respectfully dissent.

      This Court’s Rule 39.8 provides: “If satisfied that a petition for a writ of certiorari, jurisdictional statement, or petition for an extraordinary writ, as the case may be, is frivolous or malicious, the Court may deny a motion for leave to proceed informa pauperis.”


author: Justice O’Connor

text:
    BEECHAM v. UNITED STATES
    No. 93-445.
    Argued March 21, 1994
    Decided May 16, 1994

      O’Connor, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

      Nathan Lewin argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Mathew S. Nosanchuk and R. Russell Stobbs.

      Edward C. DuMont argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Days, Assistant Attorney General Harris, Deputy Solicitor General Bryson, and John F. De Pue.

      Together with Jones v. United States, also on certiorari to the same court (see this Court’s Rule 12.2).

   Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Today we construe three provisions of the federal firearms statutes:

“It shall be unlawful for any person who has been convicted . . . [of] a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year ... [to possess] any firearm ....” 18 U. S. C. § 922(g).
“What constitutes a conviction... shall be determined in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held.” § 921(a)(20) (the choice-of-law clause).
“Any conviction which has been expunged, or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction----” Ibid, (the exemption clause).

The question before us is which jurisdiction’s law is to be considered in determining whether a felon “has had civil rights restored” for a prior federal conviction.

I

Each of the petitioners was convicted of violating § 922(g). Beecham was convicted in Federal District Court in North Carolina, Jones in Federal District Court in West Virginia. Beecham’s relevant prior conviction was a 1979 federal conviction in Tennessee, for violating 18 U. S. C. § 922(h). App. 11. Jones’ prior convictions were two West Virginia state convictions, for breaking and entering and for forgery, and one 1971 federal conviction in Ohio for interstate transportation of a stolen automobile. Id., at 19-20.

Jones had gotten his civil rights restored by West Virginia, so his two West Virginia state convictions were not considered. Beecham claimed his civil rights had been restored by Tennessee, the State in which he had been convicted of his federal offense. The question presented to the District Courts was whether these restorations of civil rights by States could remove the disabilities imposed as a result of Beecham’s and Jones’ federal convictions.

In both cases, the District Courts concluded the answer was “yes,” though for different reasons: In Beecham’s case the court looked to the law of the State in which the earlier federal crime was committed (Tennessee); in Jones’ case the court looked to the law of the State in which Jones lived when he committed the § 922(g) offense (West Virginia). The Fourth Circuit reversed both rulings, reasoning that state restoration of civil rights could not undo the federal disability flowing from a federal conviction. See 993 F. 2d 1131 (1993) (Jones’ case) and 993 F. 2d 1539 (1993) (judgt. order in Beecham’s case). We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict this decision created with United States v. Edwards, 946 F. 2d 1347 (CA8 1991), and United States v. Geyler, 932 F. 2d 1330 (CA9 1991). 510 U. S. 975 (1993).

II

The question in these cases is how the choice-of-law clause and the exemption clause of §921(a)(20) are related. If, as the Fourth Circuit held, the choice-of-law clause applies to the exemption clause, then we must look to whether Beech-am’s and Jones’ civil rights were restored under federal law (the law of the jurisdiction in which the earlier proceedings were held). On the other hand, if, as the Eighth and Ninth Circuits concluded, the two clauses ought to be read separately, see Geyler, supra, at 1334-1335; Edwards, supra, at 1349-1350, then we would have to come up with a special choice-of-law principle for the exemption clause.

We think the Fourth Circuit’s reading is the better one. Throughout the statutory scheme, the inquiry is: Does the person have a qualifying conviction on his record? Section 922(g) imposes a disability on people who “ha[ve] been convicted.” The choice-of-law clause defines the rule for determining “[w]hat constitutes a conviction.” The exemption clause says that a conviction for which a person has had civil rights restored “shall not be considered a conviction.” Asking whether a person has had civil rights restored is thus just one step in determining whether something should “be considered a conviction.” By the terms of the choice-of-law clause, this determination is governed by the law of the convicting jurisdiction.

This interpretation is supported by the fact that the other three procedures listed in the exemption clause — pardons, expungements, and set-asides — are either always or almost always (depending on whether one considers a federal grant of habeas corpus to be a “set-aside,” a question we do not now decide) done by the jurisdiction of conviction. That several items in a list share an attribute counsels in favor of interpreting the other items as possessing that attribute as well. Dole v. Steelworkers, 494 U. S. 26, 36 (1990); Third Nat. Bank in Nashville v. Irnpac Limited, Inc., 432 U. S. 312, 322 (1977); Jarecki v. G. D. Searle & Co., 367 U. S. 303, 307 (1961). Though this canon of construction is by no means a hard and fast rule, it is a factor pointing toward the Fourth Circuit’s construction of the statute.

In light of the statutory structure, the fact that both clauses speak of “conviction[s]” rebuts the Eighth and Ninth Circuits’ argument that the two clauses “pertain to two entirely different sets of circumstances” — “the question of what constitutes a conviction” and “the effect of post-conviction events.” Geyler, supra, at 1334-1335; see also Edwards, supra, at 1349. The exemption clause does not simply say that a person whose civil rights have been restored is exempted from §922(g)’s firearms disqualification. It says that the person’s conviction “shall not be considered a conviction.” The effect of postconviction events is therefore, under the statutory scheme, just one element of the question of what constitutes a conviction.

Likewise, the presence of the choice-of-law clause rebuts the Eighth and Ninth Circuits’ argument that the “plain, unlimited language,” Edwards, supra, at 1349; see also Geyler, supra, at 1334, of the exemption clause — with its reference to “[a]ny conviction ... for which a person has ... had civil rights restored” (emphasis added) — refers to all civil rights restorations, even those by a jurisdiction other than the one in which the conviction was entered. Regardless of what the quoted phrase might mean standing alone, in conjunction with the choice-of-law clause it must refer only to restorations of civil rights by the convicting jurisdiction. The plain meaning that we seek to discern is the plain meaning of the whole statute, not of isolated sentences. See King v. St. Vincent’s Hospital, 502 U. S. 215, 221 (1991); Massachusetts v. Morash, 490 U. S. 107, 115 (1989); Shell Oil Co. v. Iowa Dept, of Revenue, 488 U. S. 19, 26 (1988).

We are also unpersuaded by the Ninth Circuit’s argument that “[b]ecause there is no federal procedure for restoring civil rights to a federal felon, Congress could not have expected that the federal government would perform this function,” and that therefore “[t]he reference in § 921(a)(20) to the restoration of civil rights must be to the state procedure.” Geyler, 932 F. 2d, at 1333. This reasoning assumes that Congress intended felons convicted by all jurisdictions to have access to all the procedures (pardon, expungement, set-aside, and civil rights restoration) specified in the exemption clause; but nothing in § 921(a)(20) supports the assumption on which this reasoning is based. Many jurisdictions have no procedure for restoring civil rights. See Apps. A and B to Brief for Petitioners (indicating that at least 11 States — Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, Vermont, and Virginia suspend felons’ civil rights but provide no procedure for restoring them); see, e. g., Mo. Rev. Stat. § 561.026 (1979 and Supp. 1994); United States v. Thomas, 991 F. 2d 206, 213-214 (CA5) (Texas law), cert, denied, 510 U. S. 1014 (1993). However one reads the statutory scheme — as looking to the law of the convicting jurisdiction, or to the law of the State in which the prior conduct took place, or to the law of the State in which the felon now lives or has at one time lived — people in some jurisdictions would have options open to them that people in other jurisdictions may lack. Under our reading of the statute, a person convicted in federal court is no worse off than a person convicted in a court of a State that does not restore civil rights.

Because the statutory language is unambiguous, the rule of lenity, which petitioners urge us to employ here, is inapplicable. See Chapman v. United States, 500 U. S. 453, 463-464 (1991). Of course, by denying the existence of an ambiguity, we do not claim to be perfectly certain that we have divined Congress’ intentions as to this particular situation. It is possible that the phrases on which our reading of the statute turns — “[w]hat constitutes a conviction” and “shall not be considered a conviction” — were accidents of statutory drafting; it is possible that some legislators thought the two sentences of § 921(a)(20) should be read separately, or, more likely, that they never considered the matter at all. And we recognize that in enacting the choice-of-law clause, legislators may have been simply responding to our decision in Dickerson v. New Banner Institute, Inc., 460 U. S. 103 (1983), which held that federal law rather than state law controls the definition of what constitutes a conviction, not setting forth a choice-of-law principle for the restoration of civil rights following a conviction.

But our task is not the hopeless one of ascertaining what the legislators who passed the law would have decided had they reconvened to consider petitioners’ particular cases. Rather, it is to determine whether the language the legislators actually enacted has a plain, unambiguous meaning. In this instance, we believe it does.

Ill

We therefore conclude that petitioners can take advantage of § 921(a)(20) only if they have had their civil rights restored under federal law, and accordingly affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

So ordered.

      We express no opinion on whether a federal felon cannot have his civil rights restored under federal law. This is a complicated question, one which involves the interpretation of the federal law relating to federal civil rights, see U. S. Const., Art. I, §2, cl. 1 (right to vote for Representatives); U. S. Const., Amdt. XVII (right to vote for Senators); 28 U. S. C. § 1865 (right to serve on a jury); consideration of the possible relevance of 18 U. S. C. § 925(c) (1988 ed., Supp. IV), which allows the Secretary of the Treasury to grant relief from the disability imposed by § 922(g); and the determination whether civil rights must be restored by an affirmative act of a Government official, see United States v. Ramos, 961 F. 2d 1003,1008 (CA1), cert, denied, 506 U. S. 934 (1992), or whether they may be restored automatically by operation of law, see United States v. Hall, 20 F. 3d 1066 (CA10 1994). We do not address these matters today.


author: Justice Scalia

text:
    KOKKONEN v. GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
    No. 93-263.
    Argued March 1, 1994
    Decided May 16, 1994

      Scalia, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

      Michael Reynolds Jencks argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioner.

      Frank C. Morris, Jr., argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Thomas R. Bagby and Andrea R. Calem

      A brief of amici curiae urging reversal was filed for the State of Ohio et al. by Lee Fisher, Attorney General of Ohio, Richard A Cordray, State Solicitor, and Simon B. Karas, Charles E. Cole, Attorney General of Alaska, John Payton, Corporation Counsel of the District of Columbia, Roland W. Burris, Attorney General of Illinois, Robert T. Stephan, Attorney General of Kansas, Scott Harshbarger, Attorney General of Massachusetts, Joe Mazurek, Attorney General of Montana, Susan B. Loving, Attorney General of Oklahoma, Ernest D. Preate, Jr., Attorney General of Pennsylvania, and Stephen Rosenthal, Attorney General of Virginia.

   Justice Scalia

delivered the opinion of the Court.

After respondent Guardian Life Insurance Company terminated petitioner’s general agency agreement, petitioner brought suit in California Superior Court alleging various state-law claims. Respondent removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on the basis of diversity jurisdiction and filed state-law counterclaims. After closing arguments but before the District Judge instructed the jury, the parties arrived at an oral agreement settling all claims and counterclaims, the substance of which they recited, on the record, before the District Judge in chambers. In April 1992, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(l)(ii), the parties executed a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice, dismissing the complaint and cross-complaint. On April 13, the District Judge signed the Stipulation and Order under the notation “It is so ordered.” The Stipulation and Order did not reserve jurisdiction in the District Court to enforce the settlement agreement; indeed, it did not so much as refer to the settlement agreement.

Thereafter the parties disagreed on petitioner’s obligation to return certain files to respondent under the settlement agreement. On May 21, respondent moved in the District Court to enforce the agreement, which petitioner opposed on the ground, inter alia, that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The District Court entered an enforcement order, asserting an “inherent power” to do so. Order Enforcing Settlement (ED Cal., Aug. 19,1992), App. 180. Petitioner appealed, relying solely on his jurisdictional objection. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, quoting its opinion in Wilkinson v. FBI, 922 F. 2d 555, 557 (1991), to the effect that after dismissal of an action pursuant to a settlement agreement, a “ ‘district court ha[s] jurisdiction to decide the [enforcement] motion[] under its inherent supervisory power.’” App. to Pet. for Cert. A-5 (Apr. 27, 1993) (unpublished), judgt. order reported at 993 F. 2d 883 (1993) (final brackets in original). We granted certiorari, 510 U. S. 930 (1993).

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute, see Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U. S. 131,136-137 (1992); Bender v. Williamsport Area School Disk, 475 U. S. 534, 541 (1986), which is not to be expanded by judicial decree, Amer-. ican Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn, 341 U. S. 6 (1951). It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, Turner v. Bank of North-America, 4 Dali. 8,11 (1799), and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction, McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U. S. 178,182-183 (1936).

The dismissal in this case issued pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(l)(ii), which provides for dismissal “by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared in the action,” and causes that dismissal to be with prejudice if (as here) the stipulation so specifies. Neither the Rule nor any provision of law provides for jurisdiction of the court over disputes arising out of an agreement that produces the stipulation. It must be emphasized that what respondent seeks in this case is enforcement of the settlement agreement, and not merely reopening of the dismissed suit by reason of breach of the agreement that was the basis for dismissal. Some Courts of Appeals have held that the latter can be obtained under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). See, e. g., Keeling v. Sheet Metal Workers Int’l Assn., 937 F. 2d 408, 410 (CA9 1991); Fairfax Countywide Citizens Assn. v. Fairfax County, 571 F. 2d 1299, 1302-1303 (CA4 1978). But see Sawka v. Healtheast, Inc., 989 F. 2d 138, 140-141 (CA3 1993) (breach of settlement agreement insufficient reason to set dismissal aside on Rule 60(b)(6) grounds); Harman v. Pauley, 678 F. 2d 479, 480-481 (CA4 1982) (Rule 60(b)(6) does not require vacating dismissal order whenever a settlement agreement has been breached). Enforcement of the settlement agreement, however, whether through award of damages or decree of specific performance, is more than just a continuation or renewal of the dismissed suit, and hence requires its own basis for jurisdiction.

Respondent relies upon the doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction, which recognizes federal courts’ jurisdiction over some matters (otherwise beyond their competence) that are incidental to other matters properly before them. Respondent appeals to our statement (quoting a then-current treatise on equity) in Julian v. Central Trust Co., 193 U. S. 93 (1904): “A bill filed to continue a former litigation in the same court... to obtain and secure the fruits, benefits and advantages of the proceedings and judgment in a former suit in the same court by the same or additional parties ... or to obtain any equitable relief in regard to, or connected with, or growing out of, any judgment or proceeding at law rendered in the same court,... is an ancillary suit.” Id., at 113-114 (citing 1 C. Bates, Federal Equity Procedure § 97 (1901)).

The doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction can hardly be criticized for being overly rigid or precise, but we think it does not stretch so far as that statement suggests. The expansive language of Julian can be countered by (equally inaccurate) dicta in later cases that provide an excessively limited description of the doctrine. See, e. g., Fulton Nat. Bank of Atlanta v. Hozier, 267 U. S. 276, 280 (1925) (“[N]o controversy can be regarded as dependent or ancillary unless it has direct relation to property or assets actually or constructively drawn into the court’s possession or control by the principal suit”). The holding of Julian was not remotely as permissive as its language: Jurisdiction was based upon the fact that the court, in a prior decree of foreclosure, had expressly reserved jurisdiction to adjudicate claims against the judicially conveyed property, and to retake and resell the property if claims it found valid were not paid. 193 U. S., at 109-112.

It is to the holdings of our cases, rather than their dicta, that we must attend, and we find none of them that has, for purposes of asserting otherwise nonexistent federal jurisdiction, relied Upon a relationship so tenuous as the breach of an agreement that produced the dismissal of an earlier federal suit. Generally speaking, we have asserted ancillary jurisdiction (in the very broad sense in which that term is sometimes used) for two separate, though sometimes related, purposes: (1) to permit disposition by a single court of claims that are, in varying respects and degrees, factually interdependent, see, e. g., Baker v. Gold Seal Liquors, Inc., 417 U. S. 467, 469, n. 1 (1974); Moore v. New York, Cotton Exchange, 270 U. S. 593, 610 (1926); and (2) to enable a court to function successfully, that is, to manage its proceedings, vindicate its authority, and effectuate its decrees, see, e. g., Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U. S. 32 (1991) (power to compel payment of opposing party’s attorney’s fees as sanction for misconduct); United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch 32, 34 (1812) (contempt power to maintain order during proceedings). See generally 13 C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure §3523 (1984); cf. 28 U. S. C. § 1367 (1988 ed., Supp. IV).

Neither of these heads supports the present assertion of jurisdiction. As to the first, the facts underlying respondent’s dismissed claim for breach of agency agreement and those underlying its claim for breach of settlement agreement have nothing to do with each other; it would neither be necessary nor even particularly efficient that they be adjudicated together. No case of ours asserts, nor do we think the concept of limited federal jurisdiction permits us to assert, ancillary jurisdiction over any agreement that has as part of its consideration the dismissal of a case before a federal court.

But it is the second head of ancillary jurisdiction, relating to the court’s power to protect its proceedings and vindicate its authority, that both courts in the present case appear to have relied upon, judging from their references to “inherent power,” see App. to Pet. for Cert. A-2 and A-5; App. 180. We think, however, that the power asked for here is quite remote from what courts require in order to perform their functions. We have recognized inherent authority to appoint counsel to investigate and prosecute violation of a court’s order. Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S. A., 481 U. S. 787 (1987). But the only order here was that the suit be dismissed, a disposition that is in no way flouted or imperiled by the alleged breach of the settlement agreement. The situation would be quite different if the parties’ obligation to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement had been made part of the order of dismissal — either by separate provision (such as a provision “retaining jurisdiction” over the settlement agreement) or by incorporating the terms of the settlement agreement in the order. In that event, a breach of the agreement would be a violation of the order, and ancillary jurisdiction to enforce the agreement would therefore exist. That, however, was not the case here. The judge’s mere awareness and approval of the terms of the settlement agreement do not suffice to make them part of his order.

The short of the matter is this: The suit involves a claim for breach of a contract, part of the consideration for which was dismissal of an earlier federal suit. No federal statute makes that connection (if it constitutionally could) the basis for federal-court jurisdiction over the contract dispute. The facts to be determined with regard to such alleged breaches of contract are quite separate from the facts to be determined in the principal suit, and automatic jurisdiction over such contracts is in no way essential to the conduct of federal-court business. If the parties wish to provide for the court’s enforcement of a dismissal-producing settlement agreement, they can seek to do so. When the dismissal is pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), which specifies that the action “shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff’s instance save upon order of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper,” the parties’ compliance with the terms of the settlement contract (or the court’s “retention of jurisdiction” over the settlement contract) may, in the court’s discretion, be one of the terms set forth in the order. Even when, as occurred here, the dismissal is pursuant to Rule 41(a)(l)(ii) (which does not by its terms empower a district court to attach conditions to the parties’ stipulation of dismissal) we think the court is authorized to embody the settlement contract in its dismissal order (or, what has the same effect, retain jurisdiction over the settlement contract) if the parties agree. Absent such action, however, enforcement of the settlement agreement is for state courts, unless there is some independent basis for federal jurisdiction.

We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

       Guardian Life is the sole respondent. The Guardian Insurance and Annuity Corporation and the Guardian Investor Services Corporation were listed as appellees below, but in fact they had been dismissed prior to trial.

       The relevant provision of that Rule reads as follows:
      “On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: ... (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.”