United States v. Kendrick
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15561
7th Cir.2011Background
- Kendrick pleaded guilty in Illinois state court in 1989 to eight counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault of a seven-year-old girl and was ordered to register as a sex offender.
- In 2001, Kendrick was convicted for failing to register and served probation; he initially complied with Illinois registration requirements until July 23, 2007.
- In that July 2007 filing Kendrick acknowledge(d) ongoing registration duties and the need to update address and employment if they changed.
- June 2008 Kendrick moved to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, obtained employment with Triad Group, and failed to update his registration for new address or employment.
- He did not update registration after July 2008; his whereabouts remained unknown until August 2009 when he was arrested for soliciting a prostitute; April 2010 indictment followed for failing to register as a sex offender; he pled guilty with a conditional appeal to the district court's denial of dismissal.
- The district court sentenced Kendrick to one year and one day in prison and three years of supervised release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SORNA's registration requirements exceed Congress's Commerce Clause authority | Kendrick contends the statute exceeds Commerce Clause power | Kendrick argues for overruled precedent; seeks dismissal | SORNA constitutional under Commerce Clause |
| Whether the government must overrule circuit precedent to uphold SORNA | Kendrick seeks to overturn Vasquez/Sanders | Precedent controls; no compelling reason to overrule | No compelling reason to overrule Vasquez and Sanders; uphold district court |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Vasquez, 611 F.3d 325 (7th Cir. 2010) (reaffirmed Commerce Clause basis for §2250)
- United States v. Sanders, 622 F.3d 779 (7th Cir. 2010) (confirmed Commerce Clause rationale for SORNA)
- Santos v. United States, 461 F.3d 886 (7th Cir. 2006) (compelling reason standard for overruling circuit precedent)
- McClain v. Retail Food Employers Joint Pension Plan, 413 F.3d 582 (7th Cir. 2005) (overruling precedent requires a compelling reason)
- Guerrero v. Holder, 407 Fed.Appx. 964 (7th Cir. 2011) (illustrates rehashing arguments does not constitute compelling reason)