author: Mr. Justice Powell

text:
    UNITED STATES v. MOORE
    No. 74-759.
    Argued October 7, 1975
    Decided December 9, 1975

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

      Paul L. Friedman argued the cause for the United States. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Bork, Assistant Attorney General Thornburgh, Acting Assistant Attorney General Keeney, and Sidney M. Glaser.

      Raymond W. Bergan argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Edward Bennett Williams and Harold Ungar.

   Mr. Justice Powell

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The issue in this case is whether persons who are registered under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA or Act), 84 Stat. 1242, 21 U. S. C. § 801 et seg., can be prosecuted under § 841 for dispensing or distributing controlled substances. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the conviction of respondent, a licensed physician registered under the Act, on the ground that he was exempted from prosecution under § 841 by virtue of his status as a registrant. We reverse and hold that registered physicians can be prosecuted under § 841 when their activities fall outside the usual course of professional practice.

I

Dr. Moore was charged, in a 639-count indictment, with the knowing and unlawful distribution and dispensation of methadone (Dolophine), a Schedule II controlled substance, in violation of 21 U. S. C. §841 (a)(1). That subsection provides:

“Except as authorized by this subchapter, it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally' — •
“(1) to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance . . .

The indictment covered a 5%-month period from late August 1971 to early February 1972. It was reduced before trial to 40 counts, and the jury convicted respondent on 22 counts. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of five to 15 years’ imprisonment on 14 counts, and to concurrent terms of 10 to 30 years on the remaining eight counts. The second set of sentences was to be consecutive with the first. Fines totaling $150,000 were also imposed.

Methadone is an addictive drug used in the treatment of heroin addicts. If taken without controls it can, like heroin, create euphoric “highs,” but if properly administered it eliminates the addict’s craving for heroin without providing a “high.” The two principal methods of treating heroin addicts with methadone are “detoxification” and “maintenance.” Under a maintenance program, the addict is given a fixed dose once a day for an indefinite period to keep him from using heroin. In detoxification the addict is given a large dose of methadone during the first few days of treatment to keep him free of withdrawal symptoms. Then the dose is gradually reduced until total abstinence is reached.

Maintenance is the more controversial method of treatment. During the period covered by the indictment, registration under § 822, in itself, did not entitle a physician to conduct a maintenance program. In addition to a § 822 registration, the physician who wished to conduct such a program was required to obtain authorization from the Food and Drug Administration for investigation of a new drug. Dr. Moore's authorization by the FDA was revoked in the summer of 1971, and he does not claim that he was conducting an authorized maintenance program. Instead, his defense at trial was that he had devised a new method of detoxification based on the work of a British practitioner. He testified that he prescribed large quantities of methadone to achieve a “blockade” condition, in which the addict was so saturated with methadone that heroin would have no effect, and to instill a strong psychological desire for detoxification. The Government’s position is that the evidence established that Dr. Moore’s conduct was inconsistent with all accepted methods of treating addicts, that in fact he operated as a “pusher.”

Respondent concedes in his brief that he did not observe generally accepted medical practices. He conducted a large-scale operation. Between September 1971 and mid-February 1972 three District of Columbia pharmacies filled 11,169 prescriptions written by Dr. Moore. These covered some 800,000 methadone tablets. On 54 days during that period respondent wrote over 100 prescriptions a day. In billing his patients he used a “sliding-fee scale” pegged solely to the quantity prescribed, rather than to the medical services performed. The fees ranged from $15 for a 50-pill prescription to $50 for 150 pills. In five and one-half months Dr. Moore’s receipts totaled at least $260,000.

When a patient entered the office he was given only the most perfunctory examination. Typically this included a request to see the patient’s needle marks (which in more than one instance were simulated) and an unsupervised urinalysis (the results of which were regularly ignored). A prescription was then written for the amount requested by the patient. On return visits — for which appointments were never scheduled — no physical examination was performed and the patient again received a prescription for whatever quantity he requested. Accurate records were not kept, and in some cases the quantity prescribed was not recorded. There was no supervision of the administration of the drug. Dr. Moore’s instructions consisted entirely of a label on the drugs reading: “Take as directed for detoxification.” Some patients used the tablets to get “high”; others sold them or gave them to friends or relatives. Several patients testified that their use of methadone increased dramatically while they were under respondent’s care.

The Court of Appeals, with one judge dissenting, assumed that respondent acted wrongfully but held that he could not be prosecuted under § 841. 164 U. S. App. D. C. 319, 505 F. 2d 426 (1974). The court found that Congress intended to subject registered physicians to prosecution only under §§ 842 and 843, which prescribe less severe penalties than § 841. The court reasoned:

". . . Congress intended to deal with registrants} primarily through a system of administrative controls, relying on modest penalty provisions to enforce those controls, and reserving the severe penalties provided for in § 841 for those seeking to avoid regulation entirely by not registering.” 164 U. S. App. D. C., at 323, 505 F. 2d, at 430.

It said, further, that §§ 842 and 843 were enacted to enforce that scheme, while § 841 was reserved for prosecution of those outside the “legitimate distribution chain.” Persons registered under the Act were “authorized by [the] subchapter” within the meaning of § 841 and thus were thought to be immunized against prosecution under that section.

Respondent advances two basic arguments, contending that each requires affirmance of the Court of Appeals: (i) as that court held, registered physicians may be prosecuted only under § § 842 and 843; and (ii) in any event, respondent cannot be prosecuted under § 841 because his conduct was “authorized by [the] subchapter” in question. We now consider each of these arguments.

II

A

Section 841 (a)(1) makes distribution and dispensing of drugs unlawful “[e]xcept as authorized by this subchapter . . . Relying on this language, the Court of Appeals held that a physician registered under the Act is per se exempted from prosecution under § 841 because of his status as a registrant. We take a different view and hold that only the lawful acts of registrants are exempted. By its terms § 841 reaches “any person.” It does not exempt (as it could have) “all registrants” or “all persons registered under this Act.”

The Court of Appeals relied also on § 822 (b), which provides: “Persons registered . . . under this subchap-ter to . . . distribute, or dispense controlled substances are authorized to possess, . . . distribute, or dispense such substances ... to the extent authorized by their registration and in conformity with the other provisions of this subchapter.” This is a qualified authorization of certain activities, not a blanket authorization of all acts by certain persons. This limitation is emphasized by the subsection’s heading “Authorized activities,” which parallels the headings of §§ 841-843 “Unlawful acts.” We think the statutory language cannot fairly be read to support the view that all activities of registered physicians are exempted from the reach of § 841 simply because of their status.

If § 822 (b) were construed to authorize all such activities, thereby exempting them from other constraints, it would constitute a sharp departure from prior laws. . But there is no indication that Congress had any such intent. Physicians who stepped outside the bounds of professional practice could be prosecuted under the Harrison Act (Narcotics) of 1914, 38 Stat. 785, the predecessor of the CSA. In Jin Fuey Moy v. United States, 254 U. S. 189 (1920), the Court affirmed the conviction of a physician on facts remarkably similar to those before us (e. g., no adequate physical examination, the dispensing of large quantities of drugs without specific directions for use, and fees graduated according to the amount of drugs prescribed). A similar conviction was upheld in United States v. Behrman, 258 U. S. 280 (1922), where the defendant-doctor had prescribed heroin, morphine, and cocaine to a person whom he knew to be an addict.

In enacting the CSA Congress attempted to devise a more flexible penalty structure than that used in the Harrison Act. H. R. Rep. No. 91-1444, Pt. 1, pp. 1, 4 (1970). Penalties were geared to the nature of the violation, including the character of the drug involved. But the Act was intended to “strengthen,” rather than to weaken, “existing law enforcement authority in the field of drug abuse.” 84 Stat. 1236 (1970) (preamble). See also H. R. Rep. No. 91-1444, p. 1.

Section 822 (b) was added to the original bill at a late date to “make it clear that persons registered under this title are authorized to deal in or handle controlled substances.” H. R. Rep. No. 91-1444, p. 38. It is unlikely that Congress would seek, in this oblique way, to carve out a major new exemption, not found in the Harrison Act, for physicians and other registrants. Rather, § 822 (b) was added merely to ensure that persons engaged in lawful activities could not be prosecuted.

B

Respondent nonetheless contends that §§ 841 and 822 (b) must be interpreted in light of a congressional intent to set up two separate and distinct penalty systems: Persons not registered under the Act are to be punished under § 841, while those who are registered are to be subject only to the sanctions of §§ 842 and 843. The latter two sections, the argument goes, establish modest penalties which are the sole sanctions in a system of strict administrative regulation of registrants.

The operative language of those sections provides no real support for the proposition that Congress intended to establish two mutually exclusive systems. It is true that the term “registrants” is used in §§ 842 and 843, and not in § 841. But this is of limited significance. All three sections provide that “[i]t shall be unlawful for any person ... [to commit the proscribed acts].” Two of the eight subsections of § 842 (a), one of the five subsections of § 843 (a), and § 842 (b) further qualify “any person” with “who is a registrant.” The other subsections of § § 842 and 843 are not so limited. In context, “registrant” is merely a limiting term, indicating that the only “persons” who are subject to these subsections are “registrants.” There is no indication that “persons” means “nonregistrants” when introducing the other subsections.

There are other indications that § 841, and §§ 842 and 843, do not constitute two discrete systems. Section 843 (b), for example, makes it unlawful for any person to use a communication facility in committing a felony under any provision of the subchapter. But violations of both § 841 and § 843 lead to felony convictions; criminal violations of § 842 are misdemeanors. §§ 842 (c)(2)(A), 802 (13); 18 U. S. C. §1. And counsel for respondent agreed at oral argument that registrants can be prosecuted under §841 (a)(2), which prohibits the creation, distribution, dispensing, or possession with intent to distribute or dispense of a “counterfeit substance.”

The legislative history indicates that Congress was concerned with the nature of the drug transaction, rather than with the status of the defendant. The penalties now embodied ,in §§ 841-843 originated in §§ 501-503 of the Controlled Dangerous Substances Act of 1969. The Report of the Senate Judiciary Committee on that bill described § 501 (the counterpart of § 841) as applying to “traffickers.” S. Rep. No. 91-613, p. 8 (1969). Section 502 provided “[ajdditional penalties ... for those involved in the legitimate drug trade,” and “[fjurther penalties ... for registrants” were specified in § 503. S. Rep. No. 91-613, p. 9. The House Committee Report on the bill that was to become the CSA explains: “The bill provides for control... of problems related to drug abuse through registration of manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, and all others in the legitimate distribution chain, and makes transactions outside the legitimate distribution chain illegal.” H. R. Rep. No. 91-1444, p. 3. Although this language is ambiguous, the most sensible interpretation is that the penalty to be imposed for a violation was intended to turn on whether the “transaction” falls within or without legitimate channels. All persons who engage in legitimate transactions must be registered and are subject to penalties under §§ 842 and 843 for “[mjore or less technical violations.” H. R. Rep. No. 91-1444, p. 10. But “severe criminal penalties” were imposed on those, like respondent, who sold drugs, not for legitimate purposes, but “primarily for the profits to be derived therefrom.” Ibid.

C

Congress was particularly concerned with the diversion of drugs from legitimate channels to illegitimate channels. Id., at 6; S. Rep. No. 91-613, p. 4; 116 Cong. Rec. 996 (1970) (remarks of Sen. Dodd). It was aware that registrants, who have the greatest access to controlled substances and therefore the greatest opportunity for diversion, were responsible for a large part of the illegal drug traffic. See id., at 1663 (remarks of Sen. Hruska); id., at 998 (remarks of Sen. Griffin).

Recognizing this concern the Court of Appeals suggested that Dr. Moore could be prosecuted under § 842 (a)(1) for having violated the provisions of § 829 with respect to the issuing of prescriptions. Whether Dr. Moore could have been so prosecuted is not before the Court. We note, however, that the penalties for such a violation could hardly have been deemed by Congress to be an appropriate sanction for drug trafficking by a registered physician. Indeed, the penalty for conviction under § 842 would be significantly lighter than, for example, that applicable to a registrant convicted under § 843 for using a suspended registration number. Moreover, a physician who wished to traffic in drugs without threat of criminal prosecution could, if violation of § 829 were the sole basis for prosecution, simply dispense drugs directly without the formality of issuing a prescription. Direct dispensing is exempt from § 829 and thus is not reached by any subsection of § 842 or § 843 so long as the technical requirements are complied with.

But we think it immaterial whether Dr. Moore also could have been prosecuted for his violation of statutory provisions relating to dispensing procedures. There is nothing in the statutory scheme or the legislative history that justifies a conclusion that a registrant who may be prosecuted for the relatively minor offense of violating § 829 is thereby exempted from prosecution under § 841 for the significantly greater offense of acting as a drug “pusher.”

III

Respondent argues that even if Congress did not intend to exempt registrants from all prosecutions under § 841, he cannot be prosecuted under that section because the specific conduct for which he was prosecuted was “authorized by [the] subchapter” and thus falls within the express exemption of the section.

The trial judge assumed that a physician’s activities are authorized only if they are within the usual course of professional practice. He instructed the jury that it had to find

“beyond a reasonable doubt that a physician, who knowingly or intentionally, did dispense or distribute [methadone] by prescription, did so other than in good faith for detoxification in the usual course of a professional practice and in accordance with a standard of medical practice generally recognized and accepted in the United States.” App. 123.

The Court of Appeals did not address this argument because it concluded that registrants could not be prosecuted under § 841 under any circumstances. But it suggested that if a registrant could be reached under § 841 he could not be prosecuted merely because his activities fall outside the “usual course of practice.” 164 App. D. C., at 322 n. 11, 505 F. 2d, at 429 n. 11.

Under the Harrison Act physicians who departed from the usual course of medical practice were subject to the same penalties as street pushers with no claim to legitimacy. Section 2 of that Act required all persons who sold or prescribed certain drugs to register and to deliver drugs only to persons with federal order forms. The latter requirement did not apply to “the dispensing or distribution of any of the aforesaid drugs to a patient by a physician . . . registered under this Act in the course of his professional practice only.” 38 Stat. 786. As noted above, Congress intended the CSA to strengthen rather than to weaken the prior drug laws. There is no indication that Congress intended to eliminate the existing limitation on the exemption given to doctors. The difficulty arises because the CSA, unlike the Harrison Act, does not spell out this limitation in unambiguous terms.

Instead of expressly removing from the protection of the Act those physicians who operate beyond the bounds of professional practice, the CSA uses the concept of “registration.” Section 822 (b) defines the scope of authorization under the Act in circular terms: “Persons registered ... under this subchapter ... are authorized [to dispense controlled substances] ... to the extent authorized by their registration and in conformity with the other provisions of this subchapter.” But the scheme of the statute, viewed against the background of the legislative history, reveals an intent to limit a registered physician’s dispensing authority to the course of his “professional practice.”

Registration of physicians and other practitioners is mandatory if the applicant is authorized to dispense drugs or conduct research under the law of the State in which he practices. § 823 (f). In the case of a physician this scheme contemplates that he is authorized by the State to practice medicine and to dispense drugs in connection with his professional practice. The federal registration, which follows automatically, extends no further. It authorizes transactions within “the legitimate distribution chain” and makes all others illegal. H. R. Rep. No. 91-1444, p. 3. Implicit in the registration of a physician is the understanding that he is authorized only to act “as a physician.”

This is made explicit in § 802 (20), which provides that “practitioner” means one who is “registered ... by the United States or the jurisdiction in which he practices or does research, to distribute, dispense, conduct research with respect to, administer, or use in teaching or chemical analysis, a controlled substance in the course of professional practice or research.” This section defines the term “practitioner” for purposes of the Act. It also describes the type of registration contemplated by the Act. That registration is limited to the dispensing and use of drugs “in the course of professional practice or research.”

Other provisions throughout the Act reflect the intent of Congress to confine authorized medical practice within accepted limits. Section 812 (b) (2) includes in its definition of Schedule II drugs a requirement that “[t]he drug [have] a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions.” Registration under the CSA to dispense or to conduct research with Schedule I drugs, which are defined as having “no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States,” § 812 (b) (1)(B), does not follow automatically from state registration as it does with respect to drugs in Schedules II through V, all of which have some accepted medical use. § 823 (f). The record and reporting requirements of § 827 are made inapplicable with respect to narcotic drugs in Schedules II through V when they are prescribed or administered “by a practitioner in the lawful course of his professional practice.” § 827 (c) (1) (A). Section 828 (a) prohibits the distribution of Schedule I and II drugs unless pursuant to specified order forms; § 828 (e) makes it unlawful for “any person” to obtain drugs with these order forms “for any purpose other than their use, distribution, dispensing, or administration in the conduct of a lawful business in such substances or in the course of his professional practice or research.” Section 844 (a) prohibits possession of controlled substances unless the drug was obtained “from a practitioner, while acting in the course of his professional practice, or except as otherwise authorized . . . .” See also § 885 (a) (2).

The evidence presented at trial was sufficient for the jury to find that respondent’s conduct exceeded the bounds of “professional practice.” As detailed above, he gave inadequate physical examinations or none at all. He ignored the results of the tests he did make. He did not give methadone at the clinic and took no precautions against its misuse and diversion. He did not regulate the dosage at all, prescribing as much and as frequently as the patient demanded. He did not charge for medical services rendered, but graduated his fee according to the number of tablets desired. In practical effect, he acted as a large-scale “pusher” — not as a physician.

IV

Respondent further contended at trial that he was experimenting with a new “blockade” theory of detoxification. The jury did not believe him. Congress understandably was concerned that the drug laws not impede legitimate research and that physicians be allowed reasonable discretion in treating patients and testing new theories. But respondent’s interpretation of the Act would go far beyond authorizing legitimate research and experimentation by physicians. It would even compel exernption from the provisions of § 841 of all “registrants,” including manufacturers, wholesalers, and pharmacists — in addition to physicians.

In enacting the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, 84 Stat. 1236, Title II of which is the CSA, Congress faced the problem directly. Because of the potential for abuse it decided that some limits on free experimentation with drugs were necessary. But it was also aware of the concern expressed by the Prettyman Commission:

“[A] controversy has existed for fifty years over the extent to which narcotic drugs may be administered to an addict solely because he is an addict.
“The practicing physician has . . . been confused as to when he may prescribe narcotic drugs for an addict. Out of a fear of prosecution many physicians refuse to use narcotics in the treatment of addicts except occasionally in a withdrawal regimen lasting no longer than a few weeks. In most instances they shun addicts as patients.”

Congress’ solution to this problem is found in § 4 of Title I of the 1970 Act, 42 U. S. C. § 257a. That section requires the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, after consultation with the Attorney General and national addict treatment organizations, to “determine the appropriate methods of professional practice in the medical treatment of... narcotic addiction_” It was designed “to clarify for the medical profession . . . the extent to which they may safely go in treating narcotic addicts as patients.” H. R. Rep. No. 91-1444, p. 14. Congress pointed out that “criminal prosecutions” in the past had turned on the opinions of federal prosecutors. Under the new Act, “[t]hose physicians who comply with the recommendations made by the Secretary will no longer jeopardize their professional careers . . . .” Id., at 15. The negative implication is that physicians who go beyond approved practice remain subject to serious criminal penalties.

In the case of methadone treatment the limits of approved practice are particularly clear. As Dr. Moore admitted at trial, he was authorized only to dispense methadone for detoxification purposes. His authorization by the FDA to engage in a methadone maintenance program had been revoked. Nor was respondent unfamiliar with the procedures for conducting a legitimate detoxification program. Charges arising out of his 1969 treatment program, which involved a combination of “long term” and “short term” detoxification, were dropped after he testified before a grand jury and agreed to abide by certain medical procedures in future methadone programs. These included obtaining a medical history of each patient, conducting a reasonably thorough physical examination, abiding by the results of urine tests, recording times and amounts of dosages, and either administering the methadone in his office or prescribing no more than a daily dosage. At trial respondent admitted that-he had failed to follow these procedures.

V

Respondent argues finally that the statute is sufficiently ambiguous that it must be construed in his favor despite the clear intent of the Congress. It is true that “when choice has to be made between two readings of what conduct Congress has made a crime, it is appropriate, before we choose the harsher alternative, to require that Congress should have spoken in language that is clear and definite.” United States v. Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp., 344 U. S. 218, 221-222 (1952). In this case, however, the principle set forth in United States v. Brown, 333 U. S. 18, 25-26 (1948), is appropriately followed:

“The canon in favor of strict construction [of criminal statutes] is not an inexorable command to override common sense and evident statutory purpose. . . . Nor does it demand that a statute be given the ‘narrowest meaning’; it is satisfied if the words are given their fair meaning in accord with the manifest intent of the lawmakers.”

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. Because of its disposition of the case, that court did not reach the question whether respondent could be sentenced under 21 U. S. C. § 845, which provides a higher penalty for distribution of controlled substances to persons under 21 years of age. We remand for the sole purpose of considering respondent's claim that he was improperly sentenced under that section.

So ordered.

      A substance listed in Schedule II has “a high potential for abuse,” “a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions,” and is a drug the abuse of which “may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.” 21 U. S. C. § 812 (b)(2). Methadone is listed as a Schedule II drug in §812 (c), Schedule II (b) (11).

       In addition, Dr. Moore’s license to practice medicine was revoked pursuant to D. C. Code Ann. § 2-131 (1973), which authorizes revocation upon the conviction of “any felony.” An appeal from the conviction acts “as a supersedeas to the judgment . . . revoking his license . . . .”

       One patient testified that he was taking approximately two to three pills per day when he started visiting Dr. Moore. By the end of his visits he was taking 30 to 35 pills a day. App. 43. Another patient increased his intake from five to 10 pills a day to almost 70. Id., at 53-54. A third addict, relying on Dr. Moore for drugs, increased his intake from seven pills a day to over 100. Tr. 310.

       Section 841 (a) provides, in full:
      “Except as authorized by this subchapter, it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally—
      “(1) to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance; or
      “(2) to create, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to distribute or dispense, a counterfeit substance.”
      “Dispense” is defined in § 802 (10) to mean “to deliver a controlled substance to an ultimate user ... by, or pursuant to the lawful order of, a practitioner, including the prescribing and administering of a controlled substance . . . .” Section 802 (11) defines “distribute” to mean “to deliver (other than by administering or dispensing) a controlled substance.” “Administer” refers to “the direct application of a controlled substance to the body of a patient . . . .” § 802 (2).

      lection 842 in relevant part provides:
      “(a) Unlawful acts.
      “It shall be unlawful for any person—
      “(1) who is subject to the requirements of part C to. distribute or dispense a controlled substance in violation of section 829 of this title;
      “(2) who is a registrant to distribute or dispense a controlled substance not authorized by his registration to another registrant or other authorized person or to manufacture a controlled substance not authorized by his registration;
      “(3) who is a registrant to distribute a controlled substance in violation of section 825 of this title;
      “(4) to remove, alter, or obliterate a symbol or label required by section 825 of this title;
      “(5) to refuse or fail to make, keep, or furnish any record, report, notification, declaration, order or order form, statement, invoice, or information required under this subchapter or sub-chapter II of this chapter;
      “(6) to refuse any entry into any premises or inspection authorized by this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter;
      “(7) to remove, break, injure, or deface a seal placed upon controlled substances pursuant to section 824 (f) or 881 of this title or to remove or dispose of substances so placed under seal; or
      “(8) to use, to his own advantage, or to reveal, other than to duly authorized officers or employees of the United States, or to the courts when relevant in any judicial proceeding under this sub-chapter or subchapter II of this chapter, any information acquired in the course of an inspection authorized by this subchapter concerning any method or process which as a trade secret is entitled to protection.
      “(b) Manufacture.
      “It shall be unlawful for any person who is a registrant to manufacture a controlled substance in Schedule I or II which is—
      “(1) not expressly authorized by his registration and by a quota assigned to him pursuant to section 826 of this title; or
      “(2) in excess of a quota assigned to him pursuant to section 826 of this title.”

        Section 843 provides:
      “(a) Unlawful acts.
      “It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally—
      “(1) who is a registrant to distribute a controlled substance classified in schedule I or II, in the course of his legitimate business, except pursuant to an order or an order form as required by section 828 of this title;
      “(2) to use in the course of the manufacture or distribution of a controlled substance a registration number which is fictitious, revoked,, suspended, or issued to another person;
      “(3) to acquire or obtain possession of a controlled substance by misrepresentation, fraud, forgery, deception, or subterfuge;
      “(4) to furnish false or fraudulent material information in, or omit any material information from, any application, report, record, or other document required to be made, kept, or filed under this subehapter or subchapter II of this chapter; or
      “(5) to make, distribute, or possess any punch, die, plate, stone, or other thing designed to print, imprint, or reproduce the trademark, trade name, or other identifying mark, imprint, or device of another or any likeness of any of the foregoing upon any drug or container or labeling thereof so as to render such drug a counterfeit substance.
      “(b) Communication facility.
      “It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to use any communication facility in committing or in causing or facilitating the commission of any act or acts constituting a felony under any provision of this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter. Each separate use of a communication facility shall be a separate offense under this subsection. For purposes of this subsection, the term 'communication facility’ means any and all public and private instrumentalities used or useful in the transmission of writing, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds of all kinds and includes mail, telephone, wire, radio, and all other means of communication.”

       Violations of § 841, under which respondent was convicted, carry sentences of up to 15 years, fines as high as $25,000, or both. § 841 (b). Knowing violators of § 842 are subject at most to imprisonment for one year, a fine of $25,000, or both. There also may be a civil penalty of $25,000 for violation of § 842. §842 (c). The penalties for violation of §843 are imprisonment for not more than four years, a fine of not more than $30,000, or both. §843 (c). All three sections impose higher penalties for violations after the first conviction.

       The decision below stands alone. At the time it was issued it conflicted with the rulings of four other Circuits. Courts of Appeals for the First, Fifth, and Tenth Circuits had held squarely that physicians may be prosecuted under § 841. See United States v. Badia, 490 F. 2d 296 (CA1 1973); United States v. Collier, 478 F. 2d 268 (CA5 1973); United States v. Leigh, 487 F. 2d 206 (CA5 1973); United States v. Bartee, 479 F. 2d 484 (CA10 1973); United States v. Jobe, 487 F. 2d 268 (CA10 1973). The Ninth Circuit also had affirmed the conviction of a physician under § 841 (a) (1). United States v. Larson, 507 F. 2d 385 (1974). Since the ruling in this case, two other decisions have considered the issue and expressly rejected the analysis of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. See United States v. Rosenberg, 515 F. 2d 190 (CA9 1975); United States v. Green, 511 F. 2d 1062 (CA7 1975). The Sixth Circuit has implicitly agreed. It reversed the conviction of a physician and remanded the case for a new trial because the trial court had failed to instruct the jury that physicians are exempt from prosecution under § 841 (a)(1) when they dispense or prescribe controlled substances in good faith to patients in the regular course of professional practice. United States v. Carroll, 518 F. 2d 187 (1975).

       To this end controlled substances were classified in five categories according to their potential for abuse, their promise for treatment, and their psychological and physical effects. § 812.

       Section 822 (b) was added by the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. No comparable section was in the Act when it passed the Senate on January 28,1970.

       This represents a commonsense recognition by Congress that only a registrant could, for example, distribute drugs “not authorized by his registration,” §842 (a)(2), or manufacture substances “not expressly authorized by his registration” or “in excess of [his] quota.” §§ 842 (b) (1), (2). Nor would there be any reason to apply to nonregistrants the penalties for distributing drugs without complying with the labeling and order-form requirements of the Act, §§ 842 (a) (3), 843 (a) (1), for nonregistrants are barred from making any distributions whatsoever.

       Another subsection which can be sensibly interpreted only if it reaches nonregistrants is § 842 (a) (1), which is limited to “any person — who is subject to the requirements of part C.” Part C of the Act, §§ 821-829, covers the provisions for registration and applies to “[ejvery person who manufactures, distributes, or dispenses any controlled substance or who proposes” to do so. §822 (a). Presumably, § 842 (a) (1) is so phrased in order to reach those who should have registered but failed to do so.

       Section 829 provides, in part:
      “(a) Schedule II substances.
      “Except when dispensed directly by a practitioner, other than a pharmacist, to an ultimate user, no controlled substance in schedule II, which is a prescription drug as determined under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, may be dispensed without the written prescription of a practitioner, except that in emergency situations, as prescribed by the Secretary by regulation after consultation with the Attorney General, such drug may be dispensed upon oral prescription in accordance with section 353 (b) of this title. Prescriptions shall be retained in conformity with the requirements of section 827 of this title. No prescription for a controlled substance in schedule II may be refilled.
      “(b) Schedule III and IV substances.
      “Except when dispensed directly by a practitioner, other than a pharmacist, to an ultimate user, no controlled substance in schedule III or IV, which is a prescription drug as determined under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, may be dispensed without a written or oral prescription in conformity with section 353 (b) of this title. Such prescriptions may not be filled or refilled more than six months after the date thereof or be refilled more than five times after the date of the prescription unless renewed by the practitioner.
      “(c) Schedule V substances.
      “No controlled substance in schedule V which is a drug may be distributed or dispensed other than for a medical purpose.”
      The Attorney General's regulations enacted pursuant to § 829 required:
      “A prescription for a controlled substance to be effective must be issued for a legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the usual course of his professional practice. The responsibility for the proper prescribing and dispensing of controlled substances is upon the prescribing practitioner, but a corresponding responsibility rests with the pharmacist who fills the prescription. An order purporting to be a prescription issued not in the usual course of professional treatment or in legitimate and authorized research is not a prescription within the meaning and intent of section 309 of the Act (21 U. S. C. 829) and the person knowingly filling such a purported prescription, as well as the person issuing it, shall be subject to the penalties provided for violations of the provisions of law relating to controlled substances.” 21 CFR § 306.04 (a) (1973) (redesignated as 21 CFR § 1306.04 (a) (1975)).
      The court below suggested that a violation of the “medical purpose” requirement of § 306.04 (a) makes a prescription something other than the “written prescription” required by § 829. The dissent, which agreed that Dr. Moore could be prosecuted under §842 (a)(1), did not rely on the regulations. It found inherent in the statutory term “prescription” a requirement that the order be issued for a valid medical purpose.

       On its face § 829 addresses only the form that a prescription must take. A written prescription is .required for Schedule II substances. § 829 (a). Either a written or an oral prescription is adequate for drugs in Schedules III and IV. § 829 (b). The only limitation on the distribution or dispensing of Schedule V drugs is that it be “for a medical purpose.” § 829 (c). The medical purpose requirement explicit in subsection (c) could be implicit in subsections (a) and (b). Regulation § 306.04 makes it explicit. But § 829 by its terms does not limit the authority of a practitioner.

       In addition, a doctor who dispenses a controlled substance not authorized by his registration to another registrant is also covered by § 842 and would thus be punished as severely as a doctor who sold drugs solely for financial profit to nonregistrants. § 842 (a) (2).

       Respondent argues that the proper sanction for trafficking physicians is not criminal prosecution, but deregistration or refusal to reregister. But, under respondent's analysis, at the time he was convicted neither penalty could be imposed as a sanction for the conduct in which he engaged. Registration was mandatory for practitioners with state licenses, § 823 (f), and could only be suspended or revoked if the state license was revoked or suspended, if the practitioner had “materially falsified” an application under the Act, or if he had been convicted of a drug-related felony. § 824 (a). Conviction for a misdemeanor under § 842 would be insufficient to support revocation.

      The Narcotic Addict Treatment'Act of 1974 (NATA), 88 Stat. 124, 21 U. S. C. §§ 802, 823, 824 (1970 ed., Supp. IV), modified the registration and revocation procedures provided in the CSA in order to facilitate “more expeditious” criminal prosecutions by making revocation easier.
      There was no indication that Congress thought that trafficking doctors could escape felony prosecution altogether under pre-NATA law. Rather, it sought to “cure the present difficulty in such prosecutions because of the intricate and nearly impossible burden of establishing what is beyond 'the course of professional practice’ for criminal law purposes when such a practitioner speciously claims that the practices in question were ethical and humanitarian in nature.” S. Rep. No. 93-192, p. 14 (1973). Dr. Moore’s conviction was cited to illustrate that successful criminal actions could be brought only “in the most aggravated of circumstances . . . after prolonged effort to make undercover penetrations.” Id., at 13.

       “Practitioner” means “a physician, dentist, veterinarian, scientific investigator, pharmacy, hospital, or other person licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, by the United States or the jurisdiction in which he practices or does research, to distribute, dispense, conduct research with respect to, administer, or use in teaching or chemical analysis, a controlled substance in the course of professional practice or research.” § 802 (20).

       Under § 823, registration of manufacturers and nonpraetitioner distributors (such as suppliers) is discretionary with the Attorney General. He first must make a finding that registration is consistent (in the case of manufacturers of Schedule I and II drugs) or not inconsistent (in the case of manufacturers of Schedule III-V drugs and all distributors) with the public interest. In evaluating the public interest the Attorney General is to consider, for example, “maintenance of effective controls against diversion,” compliance with applicable state and local law, prior conviction record in drug-related charges, past experience, and (in the case of manufacturers) promotion of technical advances in manufacturing and the development of new substances. Practitioners and pharmacies are automatically entitled to registration to handle drugs in Schedules II-V “if they are authorized to dispense . . . under the law of the State in which they practice.” § 823 (f).

       The House Report described the rationale behind § 823 (f) as follows: “Practitioners . . . engaged in the distribution chain would be required to be registered, but registration would be as a matter of right where the individual or firm is engaged in activities involving these drugs which are authorized or permitted under State law . . . .” H. R. Rep. No. 91-1444, p. 23 (1970) (emphasis added).

       The jury was instructed that Dr. Moore could not be convicted if he merely made “an honest effort” to prescribe for detoxification in compliance with an accepted standard of medical practice. App. 124.

       Report of the President’s Advisory Commission on Narcotic and Drug Abuse 56-57 (1963), quoted in H. R. Rep. No. 91-1444, pp. 14 — 15.

       App. 101.

        Id., at 97-100, 116, 136-138.

        Id., at 97-100.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Per Curiam.

license: Public Domain

text:
    WEINSTEIN et al. v. BRADFORD
    No. 74-1287.
    Decided December 10, 1975
   Per Curiam.

Respondent Bradford sued petitioner members of the North Carolina Board of Parole in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, claiming that petitioners were obligated under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution to accord him certain procedural rights in considering his eligibility for parole. Although respondent sought certification of the action as a class action, the District Court refused to so certify it and dismissed the complaint. On respondent’s appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, that court sustained his claim that he was constitutionally entitled to procedural rights in connection with petitioners’ consideration of his application for parole. Because the conclusion of the Court of Appeals was at odds with the decisions of several other Courts of Appeals, we granted certiorari on June 2, 1975, 421 U. S. 998, and the case was set for oral argument during the December calendar of this Court.

Respondent has now filed a suggestion of mootness with this Court, and petitioners have filed a response. It is undisputed that respondent was temporarily paroled on December 18, 1974, and that this status ripened into a complete release from supervision on March 25, 1975. From that date forward it is plain that respondent can have no interest whatever in the procedures followed by petitioners in granting parole.

Conceding this fact, petitioners urge that this is an issue which is “capable of repetition, yet evading review” as that term has been used in our cases dealing with mootness. Petitioners rely on Super Tire Engineering Co. v. McCorkle, 416 U. S. 115 (1974), to support their contention that the case is not moot. But there the posture of the parties was quite different. Petitioner employer was engaged in cyclically recurring bargaining with the union representing its employees, and respondent state official was continuously following a policy of paying unemployment compensation benefits to strikers. Even though the particular strike which had been the occasion for the filing of the lawsuit was terminated, the Court held that it was enough that the petitioner employer showed “the existence of an immediate and definite governmental action or policy that has adversely affected and continues to affect a present interest,” and noted that “the great majority of economic strikes do not last long enough for complete judicial review of the controversies they engender.” Id., at 125-126. But in the instant case, respondent, who challenged the “governmental action or policy” in question, no longer has any present interest affected by that policy.

In Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393 (1975), we reviewed in some detail the historical developments of the mootness doctrine in this Court. Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U. S. 498 (1911), was the first case to enunciate the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” branch of the law of mootness. There it was held that because of the short duration of the Interstate Commerce Commission order challenged, it was virtually impossible to litigate the validity of the order prior to its expiration. Because of this fact, and the additional fact that the same party would in all probability be subject to the same kind of order in the future, review was allowed even though the order in question had expired by its own terms. This case was followed by Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U. S. 814 (1969); SEC v. Medical Committee for Human Rights, 404 U. S. 403 (1972); and Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U. S. 330 (1972), which applied the original concept of Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC to different fact situations, including a class action in Dunn.

Sosna decided that in the absence of a class action, the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” doctrine was limited to the situation where two elements combined: (1) the challenged action was in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there was a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again. The instant case, not a class action, clearly does not satisfy the latter element. While petitioners will continue to administer the North Carolina parole system with respect to those who at any given moment are subject to their jurisdiction, there is no demonstrated probability that respondent will again be among that number. O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U. S. 488 (1974).

It appearing, therefore, that the case is moot, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the complaint. Indianapolis School Comm’rs v. Jacobs, 420 U. S. 128 (1975); United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36 (1950).

So ordered.


author: Mr. Justice Marshall

text:
    AMERICAN FOREIGN STEAMSHIP CO. v. MATISE
    No. 74-966.
    Argued October 14, 1975
    Decided December 16, 1975

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

      Francis L. Tetreault argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was John A. Flynn.

      Eric J. Schmidt argued the cause and submitted a brief for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Marshall

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Granville C. Matise, a seaman, brought this suit alleging that upon his discharge from the S. S. American Hawk, petitioner, the ship’s owner, withheld $510 in wages from him. Matise claimed that, pursuant to Rev. Stat. § 4529, as amended, 46 U. S. C. § 596, he was entitled to two days’ pay for every day that payment of the $510 had been delayed.

Title 46 TJ. S. C. § 596 provides in relevant part;

“The master or owner of any vessel [making foreign voyages] shall pay to every seaman his wages... within twenty-four hours after the cargo has been discharged, or within four days after the seaman has been discharged, whichever first happens . . . . Every master or owner who refuses or neglects to make payment in the manner hereinbefore mentioned without sufficient cause shall pay to the seaman a sum equal to two days’ pay for each and every day during which payment is delayed beyond the respective periods, which sum shall be recoverable as wages in any claim made before the court.”

The parties to this case differ over the meaning of “sufficient cause” under § 596; they are in conflict, too, over whether the trial court can exercise any discretion in determining the amount of the award under § 596. But we need not address either of these questions today. We hold simply that in this case the District Court correctly concluded that petitioner-shipowner never “refuse [d] or neglect [ed] to make payment” to Matise. This being so, petitioner incurred no liability under § 596.

I

Granville Matise was hired on January 11, 1969, as a seaman aboard the S. S. American Hawk. Between February 14 and March 19, 1969, there were five occasions on which the ship’s master entered in the ship’s log reports that Matise either was absent from his duty position or, because of intoxication, was unable to fulfill his normal responsibilities. On the first four occasions relatively minor penalties of the loss of several days’ pay were imposed. On March 19, the date of the fifth log entry, the master decided that Matise should be discharged. With the ship docked in Saigon, South Vietnam, the master took Matise before the United States Vice Consul stationed in Saigon. The Vice Consul, whose duty in such situations is to “inquire carefully into the facts and circumstances, and [to] satisfy himself that good and substantial reasons exist for a discharge,” 22 CFR § 82.16, agreed with the master that Matise’s discharge was justified. He granted the discharge application without objection from Matise, and entered into the ship’s log a notation stating that he “agreed to remove [Matise] from the vessel on grounds of misconduct at the Master’s request and for the good of the vessel.” The Vice Consul also advised the master that, because the discharge resulted from repeated instances of misconduct by Matise, petitioner was not obligated to pay for Matise’s repatriation.

Petitioner did, of course, have an obligation to pay Matise the wages that he had earned prior to his discharge. See 46 U. S. C. § 696. But payment in a form enabling Matise to secure transportation back to the United States was no easy matter. South Vietnamese law prohibited American seamen from carrying American currency ashore, and required that any ship’s safe containing American currency be sealed while the ship was in port. An airline ticket to the United States, however, could be purchased only with American currency. Thus, Matise could not simply be put ashore with his wages and left there to secure transportation back to the United States for himself.

In order to resolve the resulting dilemma, Vietnamese Customs officials gave the ship’s master special permission to break the seal on the ship’s safe and to remove enough money to purchase an airline ticket to the United States. The ticket was purchased and given to Matise along with a wage voucher for $118.45 — a sum which, as indicated on the voucher itself, represented the amount of the wages due him, less the $510 paid for the airline ticket. When Matise arrived back in the United States, he signed off the ship’s articles, executed a mutual release, and, on March 24, 1969, received the $118.45 from petitioner.

Almost one year later Matise filed suit against petitioner in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. He claimed that petitioner had withheld from him $510 in wages, and that petitioner was liable to him for that amount and, as provided in § 596, for two days’ pay for every day that payment had been delayed. The District Court rejected Matise’s claim, finding that he had “consented to and approved the purchase of an airline ticket for his purposes with his money,” and concluding that “[t]he purchase of that ticket under those circumstances constituted the equivalent of payment of monies over to the seaman.” Having found that the purchase of the airline ticket for $510 constituted a partial payment of wages, the District Court concluded that petitioner had not “'refuse [d]. or neglect [ed]” to pay and had therefore incurred no liability under § 596.

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. 488 F. 2d 469 (1974). It read § 596 as requiring that wage payments be paid directly to the seaman, and held that the $510 paid to the airline without ever having passed through Matise’s hands could not be regarded as a partial payment of wages. Citing this Court’s indication. in Isbrandtsen Co. v. Johnson, 343 U. S. 779 (1952), that only deductions and setoffs for derelictions of duty specifically provided for by Congress could lawfully be deducted from a seaman’s wages, the Court of Appeals concluded that since the statutory scheme does not provide for setoffs for return transportation expenses,, the “withholding” here at issue was improper and was without “sufficient'cause.” under § 596.

On remand, the District Court assessed damages in the amount of $510 for the wages “wrongfully withheld” and $29,462 in penalties, representing double wages calculated from March 24, 1969, four days after the discharge, until December 15, 1971, the date of the first District Court judgment in the case. Petitioner’s appeal from this assessment was dismissed by the Court of Appeals as frivolous, and this Court thereupon granted certiorari. 420 U. S. 971 (1975). We reverse.

II

The threshold question in this case is whether petitioner’s purchase and Matise’s receipt of the airline ticket constituted a partial payment of wages. If it was a partial payment, then there was no refusal or neglect to pay wages and there can be no double-wage liability under § 596. Only if the transaction was not a partial payment are we presented with the question whether the “withholding" of the $510 was without “sufficient cause” under § 596.

In Isbrandtsen Co. v. Johnson, supra, on which the Court of Appeals heavily relied, there was no question that what this Court was faced with was a refusal or neglect to make payment. There respondent, a seaman, had stabbed one of his shipmates while at sea. Over respondent’s objection, the shipowner deducted from his wages amounts spent for the medical care and hospitalization of the shipmate. We held that because the deductions were not provided for in the relevant statutes, they should not have been made — even though it might later have been determined that the shipowner had a valid claim for reimbursement against the respondent.

The situation before us today is quite different from that in Isbrandtsen. While the deductions in Isbrandt-sen were made over the seaman’s objection, the District Court in this case explicitly found that Matise “consented to and approved the purchase of an airline ticket for his purposes with his money.” Moreover, unlike the seaman in Isbrandtsen, Matise received a benefit from the petitioner’s expenditure that he simply could not have obtained through being paid in cash. Because of South Vietnamese currency regulations, it was only the procedure that was followed that allowed Matise to secure air transportation to the United States. Under such circumstances, it is evident that the shipowner did not refuse or neglect to make payment under § 596 as the shipowner in Isbrandtsen so clearly did; rather, the transaction in question constituted a partial payment of Matise’s wages.

The Court of Appeals rejected petitioner’s attempt to treat the giving of the plane ticket to Matise as a payment of wages. It viewed the purchase of the ticket as a payment to the airline, not to Matise, and observed that “the applicable statutes explicitly and unequivocally provide that the wages due are to be paid to the seaman, 46 U. S. C. §§ 596-597.” 488 F. 2d, at 471 (emphasis in original). The Court was evidently relying at this point on the following language in § 596: “The master . . . shall pay to every seaman his wages . . . within four days after the seaman has been discharged . . . .” (Emphasis added.)

The Court of Appeals’ conclusion that the “payment” went to the airline and not to Matise does not necessarily follow from the facts of this case. It could as easily be argued that “payment,” albeit in the form of an airline ticket rather than cash, was made to Matise. But even under the Court of Appeals’ characterization of the transaction, we are unwilling to say that the payment was precluded by the general language of § 596. A far more explicit statement would be required to bar such a payment under the peculiar circumstances of this case. The obvious concern of § 596 is that the shipowner not unlawfully withhold wages, and thereby unjustly enrich himself while wrongfully denying the seaman the benefits of his labor. In this case, there was neither unjust enrichment of the shipowner nor a denial of benefits to the seaman. The shipowner made in a timely manner all the expenditures for which it was obligated. And the seaman received full benefit from the $510 by consenting to have it applied in the fashion most useful to him — the purchase of an airline ticket.

Respondent advanced an alternative theory during oral argument to support the contention that petitioner neglected to make payment under § 596. Respondent argued that the master’s failure to enter into the ship’s logbook a notation that the $510 had been paid bars viewing the transaction as a partial payment of wages.

We find this argument unpersuasive. When crew members become liable for deductions from wages dis-ing a ship’s voyage, there is, it is true, a statutory requirement that “the master shall, during the voyage, enter the various matters in respect to which such deductions are made, with the amounts of the respective deductions as they occur, in the official log book.” 46 U. S. C. § 642. As we have indicated above, however, the airline ticket transaction in this case is not a “deduction from” Matise’s wages, but rather is itself a partial payment of wages. Section 642’s terms do not apply to payments of wages. The shipowner therefore acted properly in doing no more than rendering Matise a complete wage voucher that clearly noted the purchase of the airline ticket.

Ill

In reversing the decision of the Court of Appeals, we do not retreat from our view that the aim of § 596 is “to protect [seamen] from the harsh consequences of arbitrary and unscrupulous action [s] of their employers.” Collie v. Fergusson, 281 U. S. 52, 55 (1930). In this case, there was no impropriety either in the discharge itself or in the payment of wages to Matise. Nor do we today compromise our holding in Isbrandtsen that “only such deductions and set-offs for derelictions in the performance of . . . duties shall be allowed against. . . wages as are recognized in the statutes.” 343 U. S., at 787. We hold simply that, under the circumstances of this case, the transaction resulting in Matise’s receipt of an airline ticket purchased with money owed to him as wages constituted a payment of wages. There was therefore no refusal or neglect to make payment under § 596.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

       While the Third and Ninth Circuits have found that the trial judge has no discretion in determining the amount of the penalty under § 596, Swain v. Isthmian Lines, Inc., 360 F. 2d 81 (CA3 1966); Escobar v. S. S. Washington Trader, 503 F. 2d 271 (CA9 1974), cert. pending sub nom. American Trading Transp. Co. v. Escobar, No. 74-1184, the First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth Circuits have concluded that the length of time to which the penalty applies — and hence its amount — is subject to the discretion of the District Court. Mavromatis v. United Greek Shipowners Corp., 179 F. 2d 310 (CA1 1950); Forster v. Oro Navigation Co., 228 F. 2d 319 (CA2 1955), aff’g 128 F. Supp. 113 (SDNY 1954); Southern Cross S. S. Co. v. Firipis, 285 F. 2d 651 (CA4 1960), cert. denied, 365 U. S. 869 (1961); Caribbean Federation Lines v. Dahl, 315 F. 2d 370 (CA5 1963).

       See also 46 U. S. C. §682; 7 Foreign Affairs Manual §526.2.

       Two Coast Guard officers with whom the master had earlier consulted concerning Matise’s misconduct were also present and concurred in the Vice Consul’s advice that there was no obligation of repatriation.

       South Vietnamese currency regulations were apparently not the only barrier to simply discharging Matise with his full wages in cash in Saigon. The Court of Appeals noted that South Vietnamese law also required the shipowner to guarantee the removal from the country of all persons whom it had transported to South Vietnam. 488 F. 2d 469, 471-472.

       Apart from the airline ticket expense, several deductions, none of them here at issue, were also reflected on the wage voucher.

       Such a release is required by 46 U. S. C. § 644. Once such a release is signed, it “shall operate as a mutual discharge and settlement of all demands for wages between the parties thereto, on account of wages, in respect of the past voyage or engagement,” § 644, except that “any court having jurisdiction may upon good cause shown set aside such release and take such action as justice shall require.” § 597.

       Granville Matise died during the pendency of the suit. Lillian M. Matise, respondent in this vase, was appointed by the State of Maryland to administer his estate. Pursuant to stipulation, the District Court substituted respondent as plaintiff in this action.

       The District Court also held petitioner liable for interest on these sums, as well as for court costs in both the District Court and Court of Appeals.

       The District Court assessment was made in conformity with Escobar v. S. S. Washington Trader. See n. 1, supra.

       Respondent conceded as much at oral argument before this Court. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 27, 31.

       46 U. S. C. §§ 659, 663, 701, 707.

       The Court of Appeals rejected the District Court’s finding that Matise had consented to the purchase of the airline ticket with part of the wages due him, in part because of its conclusion that Matise was "compelled to sign the release and Wage Voucher in order to receive the remainder of his wages that admittedly were due.” 488 F. 2d, at 473. But there is nothing in the record to indicate that Matise's signing the wage voucher and release was the product of any such compulsion. Indeed, no claim is made that Matise registered any dissatisfaction whatsoever with either the form or amount of his wages until some months after signing the release. Nor was he the subject of any fraud or misrepresentation. See n. 14, infra. Accordingly, the District Court’s finding that Matise had consented to and approved the form and amount of his wage payment was not clearly erroneous and should have been respected by the Court of Appeals.

       To the extent that the respondent in Isbrandtsen Co. v. Johnson, 343 U. S. 779 (1952), was ultimately liable for the expenses surrounding his shipmate’s injury, he too could be said to have benefited from the shipowner’s payment of those expenses. However, unlike the ease before us today, this was a “benefit” that he could have secured for himself had he been paid the wages directly.

       Any suggestion that on Matise’s discharge petitioner had a repatriation obligation to him independent of the obligation to pay wages is without merit. That this is so follows from respondent’s concession that the discharge was validly based on Matise’s misconduct. A shipowner’s obligation to repatriate a seaman discharged in a foreign port depends on the circumstances of the discharge. For instance, there is a general obligation to repatriate seamen who, through causes other than their own misconduct, have been injured. See Ladzinski v. Sperling S. S. & Trading Corp., 300 F. Supp. 947, 956 (SDNY 1969); Miller v. United States, 51 F. Supp. 924 (SDNY 1943); The Centennial, 10 F. 397 (ED La. 1881); 1 M. Norris, The Law of Seamen §418 (1970). On the other hand, as the Court of Appeals recognized in this case, 488 F. 2d, at 471, there is no obligation to repatriate a seaman like Matise who has been discharged for misconduct. 1 Norris, supra, § 420. See Aguilar v. Standard Oil Co., 318 U. S. 724, 731 (1943).
      Nothing in Isbrandtsen suggests that when a seaman concedes that his discharge for misconduct is warranted, the shipowner must pay for the seaman’s repatriation and only later claim reimbursement from him. It is true that Isbrandtsen indicated that, because of the importance of repatriation allowances to seamen, amounts not deductible from earned wages may not be deducted from a repatriation allowance that is owing to a seaman. 343 U. S., at 789 n. 12. But in this case, we are presented, not with a deduction from a repatriation allowance that was owed to Matise, but rather, because of the nature of Matise’s discharge, with the absence of any obligation at all on the part of the shipowner toward Matise to repatriate him. The Vice Consul’s advice to the master, see supra, at 153, that petitioner had no obligation — even of a temporary nature — to pay for Matise’s return to the United States was correct. It follows that Matise’s consent to partial payment was not, as the Court of Appeals indicated, 488 F. 2d, at 473, the product of misinformation.

       The Court of Appeals’ reference to § 597 was apparently to the following language:

        “Every seaman . . . shall be entitled to receive on demand from the master of the vessel to which he belongs one-half part of the balance of his wages ... at the time when such demand is made at every port where such vessel . . . shall load or deliver cargo before the voyage is ended . . . 46 U. S. C. § 597 (emphasis added).
      For reasons identical to those presented with regard to § 596, we reject any reading of § 597 that bars the method of payment utilized in this case.