United States v. Ernest Wampler
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 142
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- Wampler was charged with failing to register as a sex offender in NC in March 2009 after moving from Texas and to register in Texas in March/April 2011 after returning from NC.
- Stipulated to a 2001 sexual assault of a child conviction, triggering SORNA registration duties.
- Government offered witnesses on NC DMV procedures showing Wampler obtained a NC ID on March 20, 2009 and failed to register in NC.
- Texas officials testified about registration duties; Wampler’s forms indicated intended residences and prior hotel registration in Midland, TX.
- Grandmother Babcock testified Wampler lived in Midland with varying duration; Marshals testified Wampler was located in Magnolia, TX.
- District court gave a jury instruction defining 'resides' broader than a strict statutory definition; Wampler objected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the district court’s 'resides' instruction reversible error? | Wampler contends definition was unnecessary and overbroad. | Government contends gloss to definition was appropriate and clarified issues. | No reversible error; instruction not inconsistent with SORNA or Guidelines. |
| Did the district court exceed the statutory definition of 'resides'? | Definition goes beyond SORNA’s text. | Guidelines permit broader, non-statutory gloss aligned with law. | Definition not reversible; consistent with Guidelines and not misstate law. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Williams, 610 F.3d 271 (5th Cir. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion review for jury instructions)
- United States v. Santos, 589 F.3d 759 (5th Cir. 2009) (standard for reviewing jury instructions)
- United States v. Brooks, 681 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 2012) (jurisdictional charge evaluation)
- United States v. Kay, 513 F.3d 432 (5th Cir. 2007) (standard for evaluating jury charges)
- United States v. Wright, 634 F.3d 770 (5th Cir. 2011) (de novo review on statutory construction issues)
- United States v. Guevara, 408 F.3d 252 (5th Cir. 2005) (statutory interpretation in jury instructions)
- United States v. Chenault, 844 F.2d 1124 (5th Cir. 1988) (need for defining statutory terms only when not within common understanding)