956 F.3d 212
4th Cir.2020Background
- Spivey, convicted in North Carolina in the late 1980s–early 1990s, was required by SORNA to register and to update registration after moving.
- He updated his North Carolina registration in September 2015 (Wilmington).
- Spivey relocated to Colorado Springs in mid‑October 2016, never registered there, and admitted knowing he was required to do so.
- A federal grand jury in the Eastern District of North Carolina indicted him under 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a) for failing to update registration after interstate travel.
- Spivey moved to dismiss for improper venue (arguing Colorado was the only proper venue); the district court denied the motion, he conditionally pleaded guilty, was sentenced, and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue is proper in the district of departure when a state sex offender travels interstate and then fails to update registration under § 2250(a) | Venue proper where travel began (EDNC); interstate travel is an essential conduct element and began on departure | Venue only proper in Colorado (where Spivey resided and failed to register); interstate element is only jurisdictional or Nichols limits duty to prior state | Interstate travel is a conduct element; venue may lie in the district of departure (EDNC). |
Key Cases Cited
- Carr v. United States, 560 U.S. 438 (interstate travel is an essential conduct element of § 2250)
- Nichols v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1113 (addressed which jurisdiction is “involved” for SORNA duties; did not resolve venue)
- United States v. Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U.S. 275 (determine locus delicti from nature and location of acts)
- United States v. Cabrales, 524 U.S. 1 (distinguishes conduct and circumstance elements for venue)
- United States v. Bowens, 224 F.3d 302 (4th Cir.) (only conduct elements support venue)
- Mitrano v. Hawes, 377 F.3d 402 (4th Cir.) (de novo review of venue dismissal)
- United States v. Holcombe, 883 F.3d 12 (2d Cir.) (venue proper in district of departure)
- United States v. Kopp, 778 F.3d 986 (11th Cir.) (same)
- United States v. Lewis, 768 F.3d 1086 (10th Cir.) (same)
- United States v. Howell, 552 F.3d 709 (8th Cir.) (same)
- United States v. Haslage, 853 F.3d 331 (7th Cir.) (contrary view on departure‑district venue)
- Gundy v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2116 (addressed SORNA non‑delegation challenge; binding on that preserved claim)