I agree with the majority’s statement that the word “the” can sometimes be read in the plural. In certain circumstances, singular terms can be construed in the plural. See 1 U.S.C. § 1 (“[U]nless the context indicates otherwise[,] words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things....”). “But obviously this rule is not one to be applied except where it is necessary to carry out the evident intent of the statute.” First Nat’l Bank in St. Louis v. Missouri, 263 U.S. 640, 657, 44 S.Ct. 213, 215, 68 L.Ed. 486 (1924) (interpreting the predecessor rule that “words importing the singular number may extend and be applied to several persons or things”); see also Toy Mfrs. of America, Inc. v. Consumer Prods. Safety Comm’n, 630 F.2d 70, 74 (2nd Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>). AEDPA evinces no legislative intent to apply
holding that 1 usc  1 does not apply except where it is necessary to carry out the evident intent of the statute holding that any acts that evidence an intent to carry out the threats may form the basis for a  2a61bl enhancement holding the rule that the singular includes the plural obviously  is not one to be applied except where it is necessary to carry out the evident intent of the statute recognizing equitable powers necessary and appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title holding grant of authority to an agency to adopt rules necessary to carry out this chapter clearly vested in the agency authority to interpret a statute