United States v. King
431 F. App'x 630
10th Cir.2011Background
- King pled guilty in 2003 to possessing child pornography and served 30 months; released 2004 and was under 36 months of supervised release with mandatory sex offender registration under SORNA.
- King registered as a sex offender in 2004 and maintained registration through January 2009, subject to residency restrictions under Oklahoma law.
- Oklahoma’s residency restriction barred sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of places primarily serving children; enforcement continued during King’s release.
- In 2009, after job loss and housing instability, King traveled for work and eventually lived in noncompliant housing; he was arrested in July 2009 for failing to register/update under SORNA.
- Superseding indictment charged King with failing to register and update under SORNA; district court denied his Supremacy Clause challenge linking SORNA with Section 590.
- At sentencing, King received 12 months and 1 day imprisonment, 5 years of supervised release, and specific special sex offender conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Supremacy Clause: conflict between Section 590 and SORNA | King argues 590 conflicts with SORNA, serving as an obstacle to compliance. | King contends 590 preempts SORNA where residency restrictions impede compliance. | Claim rejected; no redressable Supremacy Clause error; even if persuasive, remedy would be to disregard 590, not invalidate SORNA. |
| Validity of special sex offender conditions under 3583(d) | All conditions are not reasonably related to § 3553 factors and should be vacated. | District court acted within discretion; conditions are related to history, treatment, and public protection. | District court did not abuse discretion; conditions upheld as reasonably related. |
| Plain error in imposing all conditions as greater deprivation of liberty | Conditions unduly restrict liberties and First Amendment rights. | Arguments are undeveloped and fail under plain error standards. | Argument waived/underdeveloped; no plain error established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing redressability requirement)
- Free v. Bland, 369 U.S. 663 (1962) (federal law supremacy when conflict with state law)
- Wallach v. Lieberman, 366 F.2d 254 (2d Cir. 1966) (harmless error in non-certified questions)
- Hahn, 551 F.3d 977 (10th Cir. 2011) (special conditions may be imposed even if unrelated to offense)
- Begay, 631 F.3d 1168 (10th Cir. 2011) (one § 3553(a) factor sufficient for relation to condition)
- Barajas, 331 F.3d 1141 (10th Cir. 2003) (allowing sex offender conditions even when offense differs)
- Mike, 632 F.3d 686 (10th Cir. 2011) (plain error standard for sentencing challenges)
- Kunzman, 54 F.3d 1522 (10th Cir. 1995) (appellate briefing requirements for arguments)