United States v. Levi Smith
504 F. App'x 519
8th Cir.2012Background
- Smith was convicted in 1998 of a sexual assault, before SORNA took effect.
- SORNA's registration requirements apply to pre-Act offenders only as specified by the Attorney General's regulations.
- The Supreme Court in Reynolds held that the pre-Act offender registration applicability depends on AG specifications, abrogating May.
- This court previously affirmed Smith’s conviction and remanded for resentencing, including vacating one special condition.
- In 2007, the AG issued an Interim Rule stating SORNA applies to all sex offenders, including pre-Enactment offenders, followed by subsequent rules.
- On remand, Reynolds allows Smith’s non-delegation challenge to be addressed on the merits, while other claims (Commerce Clause, Due Process, Tenth Amendment) remain under review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of AG pre-Act offender regulations | Smith asserts AG regulations authorize SORNA for pre-Act offenders. | Government relies on Reynolds to govern applicability via regulations. | Remanded for proceedings; merits of regulations not finally resolved here. |
| Application of Reynolds to non-delegation challenge | Smith's non-delegation challenge should be addressed on the merits. | Reynolds allows merits review of non-delegation but not necessarily other claims at this stage. | Reynolds-based merits addressed; non-delegation claims proceed on the merits. |
| Effect of Reynolds on other constitutional challenges | Reynolds preserves Smith's Commerce Clause, Due Process, and Tenth Amendment claims for merits review. | Those claims remain subject to further proceedings consistent with Reynolds. | Other constitutional claims reinstated for reconsideration on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reynolds v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 984 (Supreme Court 2012) (pre-Act offender applicability depends on AG regulation)
- May v. United States, 535 F.3d 912 (8th Cir. 2008) (pre-Act application rejected; abrogated by Reynolds)
- United States v. Curry, 477 F. App’x 414 (8th Cir. 2012) (per curiam; reflects circuit view on post-Reynolds issues)
- Bond v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2355 (Supreme Court 2011) (non-delegation principles informing challenges)
- United States v. Fernandez, 671 F.3d 697 (8th Cir. 2012) (per curiam; addresses Reynolds-related considerations)
- United States v. Springston, 480 F. App’x 860 (8th Cir. 2012) (illustrative of remand for proceedings not inconsistent with opinion)