United States v. Curry
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24831
| 8th Cir. | 2010Background
- Curry was convicted in Nevada (2002) of attempted lewdness with a child under fourteen and received 120 months’ imprisonment.
- Upon release in 2007, he signed a Lifetime Supervision Agreement directing compliance with sex offender registration wherever he resides.
- Curry initially registered as a sex offender in Nevada but later moved to Arkansas and lived there without registering for a period in late 2008–early 2009.
- In February 2009, a grand jury indicted Curry for knowingly failing to register as required by SORNA, 18 U.S.C. § 2250.
- The district court denied Curry’s motion to dismiss, he entered a conditional guilty plea, and was sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment and life supervision.
- On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the conviction, vacated three special conditions (4–6), and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutional authority of SORNA and related provisions | Curry argues Congress lacked authority and that notice/ delegation flaws violate due process. | Government asserts SORNA valid under Commerce/Necessary and Proper, with proper delegation. | Appeal forecloses these challenges based on existing circuit precedent. |
| Validity of special conditions 4, 5, and 6 | Special conditions 5 and 6 improper due to lack of evidence of computer use; 4 lacks individualized basis. | Government contends conditions were within district court’s discretion. | Special conditions 5 and 6 vacated; condition 4 remanded for individualized findings. |
| Plain-error review of special condition 4 | Uniform imposition without individualized findings violated due process; should be vacated. | No specific argument beyond preservation, challenges limited by plain-error standard. | Condition 4 vacated for lack of individualized explanation; remand for findings. |
| Remand for resentencing | Remand appropriate to reconsider conditions with proper findings. | Remand as necessary after vacatur to adjust conditions. | Judgment affirmed in part, vacated in part; remanded for resentencing consistent with findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Howell, 552 F.3d 709 (8th Cir. 2009) (authority to enact §16913 under Commerce/Necessary and Proper)
- United States v. May, 535 F.3d 912 (8th Cir. 2008) (application of SORNA to offenders with notice complies with Due Process)
- United States v. Baccam, 562 F.3d 1197 (8th Cir. 2009) (standing to challenge delegation after initial registration)
- United States v. Zuniga, 579 F.3d 845 (8th Cir. 2009) (delegation to Attorney General for regulations under §16913(d))
- United States v. Ristine, 335 F.3d 692 (8th Cir. 2003) (plain-error review for supervised-release conditions)
- United States v. Crume, 422 F.3d 728 (8th Cir. 2005) (need for individualized findings in imposing special conditions)
- United States v. Bender, 566 F.3d 748 (8th Cir. 2009) (vacation of overly broad special condition due to lack of individualized reasoning)
- United States v. Perazza-Mercado, 553 F.3d 65 (1st Cir. 2009) (standard of individualized explanation affecting fairness)
- United States v. Simons, 614 F.3d 475 (8th Cir. 2010) (First Amendment considerations on pornography-restriction conditions)
- United States v. Boston, 494 F.3d 660 (8th Cir. 2007) (deterrence rationale for pornography restriction in sex offense cases)
- Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (probability standard for plain-error review (reference in analysis))
- United States v. Davis, 452 F.3d 991 (8th Cir. 2006) (individualized inquiry for conditions under review)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error standard framework)