## Facts

- In December 1999, Ahmed Ressam attempted to enter the United States from Canada by car ferry at Port Angeles, Washington.
- Ressam provided false information on a customs declaration form while entering the country.
- A search of Ressam’s rental car revealed explosives hidden in the trunk, which he intended to detonate at Los Angeles International Airport.
- A federal jury convicted Ressam of multiple offenses, including making a false statement to a federal official (18 U.S.C. § 1001) and carrying an explosive during the commission of a felony (18 U.S.C. § 844(h)(2)).
- The § 844(h)(2) conviction carried a mandatory consecutive 10-year sentence.
- The court of appeals vacated the § 844(h)(2) conviction, holding the statute implicitly required that the explosives be carried “in relation to” the predicate felony and concluding the government had not shown such a connection to the § 1001 offense.
- The Supreme Court granted review to determine whether § 844(h)(2) includes a relational requirement.

## Issues

1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 844(h)(2) requires proof that the defendant carried explosives “in relation to” the predicate felony.
2. Whether it is sufficient under § 844(h)(2) that the defendant carried explosives contemporaneously with the commission of a federal felony.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the § 844(h)(2) conviction.
- The Court held that § 844(h)(2) imposes a temporal requirement only: carrying explosives “during” the commission of any federal felony.
- Because Ressam carried explosives at the same time he violated § 1001, the statutory elements were satisfied.
- The Court rejected policy-based and overbreadth concerns as grounds to add an extra element not found in the statutory text.

## Legal Principles

- Under 18 U.S.C. § 844(h)(2), the government need only prove that the defendant carried explosives contemporaneously with the commission of a federal felony; no facilitative, relational, or nexus element is required.
- Courts should not insert an “in relation to” limitation into a criminal statute when Congress did not include that language, particularly where Congress has used explicit relational language in other provisions.
- Policy concerns about breadth or harsh applications do not justify narrowing clear statutory text; any narrowing must come from Congress.

## Conclusion

The Court construed “during” in § 844(h)(2) as purely temporal and held that a defendant who carries explosives while committing a federal felony is subject to the statute’s mandatory consecutive penalty even if the explosives are unrelated to the predicate offense.


United States v. Ressam, 553 U.S. 272 (2008)