United States v. Felix M. Rogers
663 F. App'x 865
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Rogers, a federal sex-offender convicted in 2003, began supervised release in Alabama and registered under SORNA in May 2011.
- He updated his registration in October 2011 to show employment with CLP Resources; he moved out of the listed residence in mid-November 2011 and later lived in Mexico.
- Arrested returning from Mexico in March 2015, Rogers was tried and convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a) for failing to update his SORNA registration and had supervised release revoked.
- The jury was presented evidence of the registration entries, testimony from a CLP recruiter about dates of employment/contact, and Rogers’ change of address; parties stipulated he was required to register.
- The district court imposed consecutive above-guidelines sentences: 60 months for the SORNA offense and 24 months for supervised-release revocation (total 84 months).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for § 2250(a) conviction | Gov: evidence supports inference Rogers remained in Alabama after moving residence and failed to update registration | Rogers: evidence also permits inference he left directly for Mexico; timing is ambiguous | Affirmed — viewing evidence in light most favorable to gov, reasonable inferences support conviction for failure to update residence or employment |
| Whether indictment/theory presented to jury matched conviction | Gov: indictment charged failure to update required registration, including residence changes | Rogers: jury was not adequately presented with employment-update theory | Affirmed — indictment encompassed both residence and employment theories; conviction was on charged theory |
| Substantive reasonableness of above-guidelines sentences | Gov: district court properly weighed § 3553(a) factors given history and public protection needs | Rogers: variances were excessive and unreasonable | Affirmed — deferential review; court’s articulated reasons (violent history, recidivism, lack of remorse) support upward variances |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Klopf, 423 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2005) (standard for sufficiency review and circumstantial-evidence inference)
- United States v. Molina, 443 F.3d 824 (11th Cir. 2006) (jury may choose among reasonable inferences)
- United States v. Elkins, 885 F.2d 775 (11th Cir. 1989) (cannot convict on theory not in indictment)
- United States v. Hill, 643 F.3d 807 (11th Cir. 2011) (notice requirement of indictment explained)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for substantive-reasonableness review)
- United States v. Williams, 526 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2008) (deference to district court on variances from guidelines)
- United States v. Shaw, 560 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir. 2009) (vacatur only for clear error in weighing § 3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Valnor, 451 F.3d 744 (11th Cir. 2006) (upward variance may be reasonable when sentence remains below statutory maximum)
- United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371 (11th Cir. 2010) (affirming significant upward variance)
- United States v. Brown, 772 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2014) (affirming large upward variance)
- United States v. Suarez, 939 F.2d 929 (11th Cir. 1991) (requirements for meaningful appellate review of sentencing reasons)