United States v. Fernandez
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4021
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Fernandez pleaded guilty to one count of failing to register as a sex offender under 18 U.S.C. § 2250.
- District court sentenced him to 18 months' imprisonment and five years' supervised release.
- Detective learned Fernandez lived in Arkansas with Oklahoma sex-offender convictions (forcible sodomy 1993; second-degree rape 1996) and that he had not registered as required by SORNA.
- Fernandez was charged by grand jury with knowingly failing to register after interstate travel under § 2250; he moved to dismiss, then pled guilty conditionally, preserving appeals on the district court ruling.
- Fernandez challenged SORNA on non-delegation grounds under § 16913(d); district court cited Hacker and May to hold lack of standing because Fernandez could register before SORNA's enactment.
- Supreme Court’s Reynolds decision held AG rulemaking power extends to pre-Act offenders; Fernandez has standing to challenge § 16913(d); remand for merits on non-delegation claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Non-delegation challenge to §16913(d)? | Fernandez lacks standing under May; AG power limited. | Congressional grant and AG rulemaking apply; standing exists only for pre-Act offenders unable to register. | Remanded; standing and merits to be reconsidered in light of Reynolds. |
| Does Reynolds give Fernandez standing to raise non-delegation claim? | Reynolds expands standing to pre-Act offenders. | May controls standing limits; pre-Act status not enough here. | Fernandez has standing; remand for merits. |
| Authority of Congress/Commerce Clause to enact §2250 and §16913? | Constitutional authority exists under Commerce Clause. | Plaintiff's arguments foreclosed by circuit precedent. | Affirmed in part, reversed in part; authority upheld. |
| Notice to sex offender and due process sufficiency for §2250 prosecution? | Notice requirements trigger due process concerns. | Notice provisions satisfied; §2250 prosecution valid even without notice under §16917. | District court correctly rejected arguments; precedents support validity. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hacker, 565 F.3d 522 (8th Cir. 2009) (limited standing under §16913(d) to pre-Act offenders unable to register)
- United States v. May, 535 F.3d 912 (8th Cir. 2008) (scope of AG rulemaking authority under §16913(d))
- United States v. Howell, 552 F.3d 709 (8th Cir. 2009) (commerce power authority to enact §2250 and §16913)
- United States v. Baccam, 562 F.3d 1197 (8th Cir. 2009) (notice to sex offender of state registration requirements; prosecution valid without notice)
- Reynolds v. United States, U.S. , 132 S. Ct. 975 (2012) (AG rulemaking power extends to pre-Act offenders; pre-Act status governs applicability)