Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984, Pub.L. No. 98-353, 98 Stat. 333, 352, 198) U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News (98 Stat) 333, 352 (1984). There is no published legislative history suggesting the possibility of a drafting error or other inadvertence. Appellee conceded during oral argument that there is no legislative history showing that the section was meant to apply to “persons.” Therefore, this is not one of those “rare cases [in which] the literal application of a statute will produce a result demonstrably at odds with the intention of its drafters.” Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U.S. at 242, 109 S.Ct. at 1031 (brackets in original). In re Chateaugay Corp., 920 F.2d at 185; cf. Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, — U.S.-,-, 113 S.Ct. 716, 726, 121 L.Ed.2d 656 (1993) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, there is a plausible explanation
holding the word individuals is not the equivalent of the dictionary acts use of the word persons recognizing that the word under has many dictionary definitions and must draw its meaning from its context holding that a states use of the word shall is mandatory language holding that the word void is not sufficient holding that the word interest is to be understood in its ordinary senseto hold that congress intended to use the word in the sense of a penalty is contrary to all rules of interpretation and invokes a special definition of the word interest that is unwarranted citations omitted