United States v. Nam Van Hoang
636 F.3d 677
5th Cir.2011Background
- Hoang convicted in Louisiana in 2005 of two counts of attempted aggravated crimes against nature, classified as a sex offender under SORNA.
- Hoang registered under state law prior to SORNA and was informed of ongoing registration obligations if he moved.
- Hoang moved to Lubbock, Texas; Texas authorities later required him to register as a sex offender in Texas and Louisiana.
- SORNA was enacted on July 27, 2006; it requires registration in each jurisdiction where the offender resides.
- Interim Rule issued February 28, 2007 stated SORNA applies to pre-SORNA offenders; Hoang traveled interstate after enactment but before Interim Rule.
- Hoang was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a) for failing to register after SORNA’s enactment but before the Interim Rule; district court denied motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did SORNA become applicable to pre-SORNA offenders? | Hoang: SORNA applied from enactment date. | Government: Interim Rule governs retroactivity. | Interim Rule controls; Hoang not subject until then. |
| Interpretation of 42 U.S.C. § 16913(d) first clause | AG may specify applicability to pre-SORNA offenders. | Text read narrowly; limits retroactivity. | First clause authorizes AG to specify applicability to pre-SORNA offenders. |
| Do ambiguities in SORNA trigger the rule of lenity? | Statute is ambiguous; lenity favors Hoang. | No ambiguity; standard interpretation controls. | Any residual ambiguity resolved in Hoang’s favor under lenity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carr v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2229 (2010) (SCOTUS held pre-SORNA offenders’ interstate travel prior to enactment not within SORNA)
- United States v. Hatcher, 560 F.3d 222 (4th Cir. 2009) (AG may specify retroactive applicability to pre-SORNA offenders)
- United States v. Cain, 583 F.3d 408 (6th Cir. 2009) (ambiguous interplay of statutory clauses in retroactivity question)
- Hinckley v. United States, 550 F.3d 926 (10th Cir. 2008) (discussed interpretation of subsection (d) and retroactivity scope)
- United States v. May, 535 F.3d 912 (8th Cir. 2008) (pre-SORNA offenders subject under different readings of §16913(d))
- United States v. Dixon, 551 F.3d 578 (7th Cir. 2008) (rejected reading of retroactivity later refined by Carr)
- United States v. Madera, 528 F.3d 852 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam addressing retroactivity concerns for pre-SORNA offenders)