United States v. Kenneth Mattix
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 19477
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Mattix was convicted in 1992 of first degree sodomy, first degree attempted rape, and related offenses, creating a registration duty as a sex offender.
- In 2010 Mattix moved from Oregon to Nevada but did not update his Oregon registration or register in Nevada.
- He was arrested in September 2010 and charged with failing to register as a sex offender under 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a).
- SORNA imposes federal penalties on known sex offenders who knowingly fail to register or update; the retroactivity question hinges on AG actions.
- The Ninth Circuit in Valverde held SORNA retroactive as of August 1, 2008 when final SMART guidelines took effect; interims did not satisfy APA.
- Mattix was tried on stipulated facts in a bench trial, found guilty, and sentenced to 30 months; the district court denied his motion to dismiss the indictment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SORNA retroactivity applies to Mattix | Mattix argues Valverde dicta limits retroactivity. | Mattix argues August 1, 2008 date is dicta or incorrect. | Retroactivity fixed at Aug. 1, 2008; Valverde binding. |
| Whether Valverde's holding is binding and controlling | Valverde’s dicta should not control this case. | Valverde's reasoning on retroactivity applies here. | Valverde’s holding binding; SORNA retroactive when final SMART guidelines took effect. |
| Whether the district court erred in denying dismissal based on retroactivity | Matix contends the indictment should be dismissed if retroactivity did not apply. | No error since retroactivity applies to pre-enactment offenders. | Indictment not dismissed; conviction affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Valverde, 628 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2010) (SORNA retroactivity fixed by final SMART guidelines (Aug. 1, 2008))
- Reynolds v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 975 (U.S. 2012) (discusses retroactivity framework (APA considerations))
- United States v. Begay, 622 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for statutory interpretation)
- United States v. George, 672 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2012) (reliance on Valverde’s retroactivity ruling)
- United States v. Clements, 655 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2011) (courts have relied on Valverde for retroactivity)