United States v. Booker Vanderhorst
688 F. App'x 185
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Booker T. Vanderhorst was convicted of violating the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3) (Count 2), and being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (Count 3).
- The district court required Vanderhorst to register under SORNA as a sex offender based on the Travel Act conviction.
- Vanderhorst did not raise the SORNA-registration issue in the district court; the appellate review is for plain error.
- Vanderhorst argued the Travel Act is categorically not a “sex offense” under SORNA because it lacks an element involving a sexual act or sexual contact, and that the SMART Guidelines’ categorical approach (Chevron deference) should apply.
- The government relied on a circumstance-specific (noncategorical) approach to determine whether the prior offense is a specified offense against a minor under SORNA’s residual clause.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding Price controls and requires the circumstance-specific approach, which means Vanderhorst must register.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Travel Act conviction qualifies as a SORNA "sex offense" under §16911(7)(I) | Travel Act is not categorically a sex offense; SMART Guidelines require categorical approach and Chevron deference | §16911(7)(I) should be applied using a circumstance-specific approach; Price supports that approach | Circumstance-specific approach applies; Travel Act conviction requires SORNA registration |
| Whether the SMART Guidelines merit Chevron deference on §16911(7)(I)'s meaning | SMART Guidelines create ambiguity and deserve deference | §16911(7)(I) is unambiguous and indicates a conduct-based inquiry; no Chevron deference | No Chevron deference; statute construed to require circumstance-specific analysis |
| Whether the modified categorical approach applies to §1952(a)(3) | Travel Act is indivisible so modified categorical approach is inapplicable | Even if indivisible, Price governs and circumstantial inquiry is proper | Modified categorical approach not necessary; circumstance-specific inquiry controls |
| Standard of appellate review | Plain error review because issue not raised below | Same | Plain error review; no reversible error because Price forecloses Vanderhorst's arguments |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Price, 777 F.3d 700 (4th Cir.) (§16911(7)(I) requires circumstance-specific inquiry)
- United States v. Bridges, 741 F.3d 464 (4th Cir.) (discussed and distinguished)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (framework for agency deference)