United States v. George
625 F.3d 1124
| 9th Cir. | 2010Background
- George convicted of federal sexual abuse of a minor on an Indian reservation under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2243(a), 1153.
- He later failed to register as a sex offender under SORNA, violating 18 U.S.C. § 2250, leading to a 2008 conviction via conditional guilty plea.
- George challenges the indictment on grounds that Washington had not implemented SORNA at the time of his failure to register.
- He also challenges SORNA's registration as beyond Congress's power and as violative of the Ex Post Facto Clause.
- The district court denied motions; the Ninth Circuit affirms, holding federal registration runs regardless of state implementation and is within Congress’s power.
- The opinion discusses interim federal rule (Feb. 28, 2007) and Congress’s implementation timetable for states.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal prosecution is valid despite state non-implementation | George argues Washington's non-implementation bars federal action | George contends SORNA applies only if state is compliant | No; federal registration duty applies regardless of state implementation |
| Whether SORNA exceeds Congress's Commerce Clause powers | George asserts lack of constitutional support | SORNA valid under commerce clause to track movement of offenders | SORNA proper under Commerce Clause |
| Whether applying SORNA to George violates Ex Post Facto | George claims retroactive punishment | Continued registration obligation existed post-enactment; continuing offense | Not ex post facto; offense continuing and enacted law applied |
| Whether 18 U.S.C. § 2250 is interpreted as a continuing offense | Toussie-type argument about one-time offense | Registration failure is a continuing offense after relocation | Interpreted as continuing offense; prosecution proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Carr v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2229 (Supreme Court 2010) (SORNA implementation and federal role; preemption by federal interests)
- United States v. May, 535 F.3d 921 (8th Cir. 2008) (state implementation not prerequisite for federal registration duty)
- United States v. Hinckley, 550 F.3d 926 (10th Cir. 2008) (SORNA registration track interstate movement)
- United States v. Gould, 568 F.3d 459 (4th Cir. 2009) (SORNA national registration duty)
- United States v. Guzman, 591 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2010) (SORNA application despite state delays)
- United States v. Brown, 586 F.3d 1342 (11th Cir. 2009) (statutory registration obligation independent of state enactment)
- United States v. Howell, 552 F.3d 709 (8th Cir. 2009) (interpretation of SORNA to require registration across jurisdictions)
- United States v. Ambert, 561 F.3d 1202 (11th Cir. 2009) (broad interpretation of federal interest in registration)