context: . Lacour also argues that the court should apply the rule of lenity because Congress' intent is not clear as to sentencing under SS 841(b)(1)(C). Because a reading of the Guidelines and statutory sections removes any potential ambiguity, we decline to invoke the rule of lenity here.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 9 F.3d 1455, 1455
citation_a.parenthetical: "There is no ambiguity upon which the rule of lenity can operate"
citation_a.sentence: See Chapman, 500 U.S. at 463, 111 S.Ct. at 1926 ("The rule of lenity, however, is not applicable unless there is a grievous ambiguity or uncertainty in the language and structure of [a congressional act] ... ”); see also United States v. Nelson, 29 F.3d 261, 264 (7th Cir.1994); Crowell, 9 F.3d at 1455 ("There is no ambiguity upon which the rule of lenity can operate”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 500 U.S. 463, 463
citation_b.parenthetical: "The rule of lenity, however, is not applicable unless there is a grievous ambiguity or uncertainty in the language and structure of [a congressional act] ... "
citation_b.sentence: See Chapman, 500 U.S. at 463, 111 S.Ct. at 1926 ("The rule of lenity, however, is not applicable unless there is a grievous ambiguity or uncertainty in the language and structure of [a congressional act] ... ”); see also United States v. Nelson, 29 F.3d 261, 264 (7th Cir.1994); Crowell, 9 F.3d at 1455 ("There is no ambiguity upon which the rule of lenity can operate”).