419 F. App'x 485
5th Cir.2011Background
- Byrd is a two-time sex offender with prior New Mexico and Washington convictions.
- He last registered as a sex offender in Arizona in 2004 and acknowledged ongoing registration obligations.
- Between July 3, 2007 and January 8, 2008, Byrd traveled interstate from New Mexico to Texas at least twice.
- Byrd rented an El Paso apartment on January 10, 2008 and was arrested February 3, 2008 for failing to register in Texas or update registration.
- A bench trial on stipulated facts led to a guilty verdict, followed by a 24-month sentence under SORNA § 2250.
- Byrd appealed, challenging the government’s nexus theory and various constitutional/ APA arguments; the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nexus and sequence under § 2250 | Byrd argued pre-Carr travel cannot support § 2250 liability. | Carr requires a nexus between travel and failure to register. | Carr requires sequential elements; travel, then failure to register. |
| Evidence of knowledge of SORNA requirements | Knowledge of SORNA obligations is not shown by Byrd's lack of notice. | Byrd did not knowingly fail to register without adequate notice. | Sufficient evidence supports knowing failure to register; notice not required. |
| APA violations in interim rule § 72.3 | AG lacked good cause for bypassing notice and comment and 30-day delay. | APA violations were harmless under the circumstances. | APA violations were harmless error as applied to Byrd. |
| Due process and Commerce Clause challenges | SORNA violates due process and exceeds Congress's Commerce Clause power. | SORNA is valid; prior cases support these positions. | Challenges foreclosed by controlling Fifth Circuit decisions; SORNA valid. |
| Right to travel | SORNA violates the fundamental right to travel. | SORNA does not burden travel in a way that violates the right. | SORNA registration requirements do not implicate the fundamental right to travel. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carr v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2229 (Supreme Court 2010) (requiring nexus between travel and failure to register under § 2250)
- Whaley, 577 F.3d 254 (5th Cir. 2009) (due process and Commerce Clause authority under SORNA)
- Heth, 596 F.3d 255 (5th Cir. 2010) (knowledge of duty to register sufficient for sufficiency challenge)
- Shenandoah, 595 F.3d 151 (3d Cir. 2010) (SORNA does not violate right to travel)
- Ambert, 561 F.3d 1202 (11th Cir. 2009) (SORNA does not infringe on right to travel; burden justified)
- Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (Supreme Court 1999) (right to travel protections and state mobility)
- Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (Supreme Court 1969) (history of protecting travel within the Union)
- United States v. Delgado-Nunez, 295 F.3d 494 (5th Cir. 2002) (de novo review standard for legal and constitutional challenges)