United States v. Robert Joseph Berent

523 F.2d 1360, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 12556

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: September 30, 1975
• Docket: 75-1325
• Status: Published

Opinions

OPINION

Before CHAMBERS, ELY and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges.

CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge:

The only issue in this case is whether making book on the outcome of sporting events other than horseraeing is one of the gambling activities illegal under Nevada law unless a license has first been obtained. If it is not, then such bookmaking is not a gambling business which is “a violation of the law of a State” under 18 U.S.G. § 1955(b)(l)(i), and the district court was correct in dismissing the indictment of appellees under that section.

By Nev.Rev.Stat. § 463.160 (1973), it is unlawful for any person to “conduct or maintain any horserace book or sports pool” without procuring the necessary licenses. The government’s argument is that the term “sports pool” as understood under the Nevada statute covers all methods of gambling on the outcome of sporting events, including bookmaking.¹ Construing this criminal statute narrowly, as we must, we cannot accept this contention. In common usage the term “pool” connotes a particular gambling practice, an arrangement whereby all bets constitute a common fund to be taken by the winner or winners. This is distinct from the practice of bookmaking. Compare 2 Encyclopedia Britannica (Micropaedia), 154 (15th ed. 1974), with 8 id. 116. Given the statute’s separate reference to “horserace book,” we conclude the term “pool” was used in this ordinary, limited sense and not as the catchall provision argued for by the government.

Our conclusion is unaltered by the Nevada Gaming Commission’s regulation giving the term a broader definition. While the Commission may have the power to elaborate upon the meaning of vague or technical terms, no authorities have been advanced to suggest that the. Commission may give to a statutory term plainly used in its ordinary sense a wholly different definition.

, The district court’s decision dismissing the indictment is affirmed.

1 . Under the version of the statute in effect when the events alleged in the indictment occurred, the term “sports pool” was not defined. After the district court’s decision in this case, a section was added defining “sports pool” to mean “the business of accepting wagers on sporting events by any system or method of wagering other than the system known as the pari-mutuel method of wagering,” ch. 452, § 1 [1975] Stats, of Nev. (May 14, 1975). This provision went into effect on July 1, 1975.