United States v. Nelson
400 F. App'x 781
4th Cir.2010Background
- Nelson, a convicted sex offender, was charged with failing to update his sex-offender registration under SORNA § 2250.
- He pled guilty under a written agreement, preserving his right to appeal the district court’s denial of the indictment dismissal motion.
- Sentence: 41 months in prison and a 25-year term of supervised release.
- Nelson appeals on grounds including that SORNA exceeds Congress’s Commerce Clause power and retroactivity regulations were misissued (APA).
- District court imposed polygraph testing as a supervision condition, with no explicit public-notice restriction on disclosure of test results.
- Court reviews the sufficiency of the sentence for reasonableness under Gall, noting the sentence is within statutory maximum and presumptively reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SORNA exceeds Congress’s Commerce Clause power and retroactivity regulations violate the APA | Nelson argues SORNA exceeds Commerce Clause limits and retroactivity violates APA. | Government relies on prior panel precedent upholding SORNA and retroactivity rules. | Issue foreclosed; panel precedent controls; affirmed. |
| Whether the polygraph condition violates the Fifth Amendment | Nelson contends potential disclosure of results could infringe Fifth Amendment rights. | Court previously approved polygraph as a treatment-monitoring tool, not for incrimination. | Polygraph condition upheld; disclosure issue speculative and non-binding at this stage. |
| Whether the 25-year supervised release term is reasonable | Nelson asserts term is unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). | Term is within statutory maximum and presumptively reasonable given the offense. | Term presumptively reasonable within statutory maximum; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gould, 568 F.3d 459 (4th Cir. 2009) (panel cannot overrule prior panel precedent; binding within circuit)
- Scotts Co. v. United Indus. Corp., 315 F.3d 264 (4th Cir. 2002) (panel stare decisis; cannot overrule prior panel decision)
- United States v. Dotson, 324 F.3d 256 (4th Cir. 2003) (polygraph as treatment tool; not for gathering incriminating evidence)
- United States v. Zinn, 321 F.3d 1084 (11th Cir. 2003) ( Fifth Amendment challenge to polygraph remains speculative until forced testimony)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (reasonableness review of sentences; totality of circumstances; variance from Guidelines)
- United States v. Daniels, 541 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2008) (reasonableness review framework for sentences; abuse of discretion standard)