be used to overcome the operative terms of the statute.” (quoting Cabell Huntington Hosp., Inc. v. Shalala, 101 F.3d 984, 990 (4th Cir.1996)) (internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Kassouf, 144 F.3d 952, 959-60 (6th Cir. 1998) (finding “relating to” parenthetical in 26 U.S.C. § 6531(6) descriptive); United States v. Garner, 837 F.2d 1404, 1419 (7th Cir.1987) (“[W]hen read in context, the parenthetical ‘relating to bribery’ does not limit the incorporation of [18 U.S.C. § ] 201 [into § 1961(1)(B) ], but describes it.... As another court has said, the parenthetieals are only ‘visual aids,’ designed to guide the reader through what would otherwise be a litany of numbers.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Herring, 602 F.2d 1220, 1223 (5th Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>). But see Evangelista v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d
holding that the relating to parenthetical in 18 usc  1961 was merely to aid identification of 18 usc  2314 rather than to limit its application holding for the purposes of 18 usc  924e that being a felon in possession of a firearm is not a violent felony as defined in 18 usc  924e2b holding that in relation to is an element of 18 usc  924c holding that 18 usc  1919 did not implicitly repeal 18 usc  1001 holding that a sentencing court is required by 18 usc  3583g to revoke the defendants term of supervised release  unless defendant could come under the exception in 18 usc  3583d