United States v. Dwaine Collins, 773 F.3d 25

Background

Collins pleaded guilty in 1998 in North Carolina to two counts of taking indecent liberties with a child and was required to register as a sex offender under state and federal law.
After release he registered in Ohio but failed to re-register in 2002; a warrant issued and he later moved to West Virginia and did not register there (2001–2011).
In 2011 Collins was arrested in Ohio on the outstanding warrant; he signed registration-notice forms (one incorrectly stating a 25-year Tier II obligation) and pleaded no contest in Ohio state court to failing to verify his address. The state judge suggested the original 10-year registration period may have expired.
Collins returned to West Virginia and did not register; in 2013 he was indicted under SORNA (federal law) for knowingly failing to register and submitted to a bench trial on the knowledge element.
The district court found Collins knowingly avoided registration (relying on prior failures to register, signed forms, statements about fearing retaliation, and use of an alias), convicted him, and sentenced him to 30 months’ imprisonment and ten years’ supervised release.
On appeal the Fourth Circuit affirmed the conviction and imprisonment but vacated and remanded the supervised-release term in light of a Sentencing Commission clarifying amendment that failure-to-register is not a "sex offense" for Guidelines purposes and adopts the Gibbs rule for statutory-minimum supervised release.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Collins "knowingly" failed to register under 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a)(3)	Collins: Ohio judge’s comments told him his duty had lapsed, so he lacked the requisite knowledge	Government: Collins’s history of registrations, signed notices, prior failures to register, statements about avoiding registration, and alias use show deliberate avoidance	Affirmed — substantial evidence supports knowing avoidance; state judge’s comments were not a binding legal ruling and entrapment-by-estoppel does not extend across sovereigns
Whether entrapment by estoppel applies where a state official’s advice relates to state law but prosecution is federal	Collins: equitably should apply because he relied on judge’s assurance	Government: entrapment-by-estoppel limited to same-sovereign advice/prosecution	Affirmed — Fourth Circuit follows Etheridge: estoppel defense does not extend when advising and prosecuting sovereigns differ
Whether the 30‑month imprisonment sentence was unreasonable	Collins: sentence excessive	Government: within Guidelines and supported by §3553(a) factors	Affirmed — sentence within Guidelines (24–30) and justified; defendant had requested similar range
Whether supervised-release term should be vacated given post‑sentencing Guidelines amendment	Collins: Guidelines calculation was incorrect; amendment supports lower supervised-release recommendation	Government: agreed amendment applies	Vacated and remanded — Sentencing Commission’s clarifying amendment (failure to register not a "sex offense") applies and adopts the Gibbs approach (recommend single point at statutory minimum); district court should reconsider supervised release

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Poole, 640 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2011) (standard for affirming a conviction on sufficiency of the evidence)
United States v. Etheridge, 932 F.2d 318 (4th Cir. 1991) (entrapment-by-estoppel limited to same-sovereign situations)
United States v. Goodwin, 717 F.3d 511 (7th Cir. 2013) (failure to register under SORNA is not a "sex offense" for Guidelines; adopt Gibbs rule for supervised release)
United States v. Goines, 357 F.3d 469 (4th Cir. 2004) (clarifying amendments to Guidelines must be applied on appeal)
Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (appellate review of sentencing for reasonableness under Guidelines and §3553(a))
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)