United States v. Nicholas Schofield
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 16883
| 5th Cir. | 2015Background
- Schofield pled guilty to one count of attempted transfer of obscene material to a minor; district court ordered him to register as a sex offender under SORNA.
- Schofield urged the registration requirement did not apply because the offense is not a sex offense under SORNA and the residual clause is vague.
- Factual timeline: 2013–2014 Schofield texted a 15-year-old as an 18-year-old; undercover agent later continued the chat; he sent explicit images and instructed masturbation.
- Indictment charged one count of transfer of obscene material to a minor and four counts of attempted transfer; he pled guilty to one count (video of an adult male masturbating) and others were dismissed at sentencing.
- Sentence: 24 months in prison and mandatory SORNA registration upon release; he preserved the challenge to the registration requirement for appeal.
- Court applied de novo review to legal conclusions about SORNA classification and proceeded to analyze whether the offense qualifies as a sex offense under SORNA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1470 can qualify as a SORNA sex offense. | Schofield: §1470 not enumerated; cannot be a sex offense. | Government: residual clause can reach unenumerated offenses like §1470. | Yes; §1470 can qualify under the residual clause. |
| Whether Schofield’s conduct falls within the SORNA residual clause. | Schofield urges categorical approach; insufficient conduct mapping. | Government advocates non-categorical approach focusing on conduct. | Schofield’s conduct falls within the residual clause under both approaches. |
| Whether the SORNA residual clause is ambiguous or vague. | Clause circular/ambiguous; could be vague. | Clause not ambiguous; aligned with Congress’s broad reach; Johnson guidance distinguishes SORNA. | Residual clause not ambiguous or vague; not unconstitutional. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dodge, 597 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2010) (broadly held that §1470 can qualify as a specified offense against a minor under SORNA)
- United States v. Gonzalez-Medina, 757 F.3d 425 (5th Cir. 2014) (court-approved broad sweep of SORNA to include unenumerated offenses)
- Price v. United States, 777 F.3d 700 (4th Cir. 2015) (non-categorical approach to SORNA residual clause; conduct-focused analysis)
- United States v. Johnson, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (U.S. 2015) (ACCA residual clause vagueness; informs rejection of vagueness claim here)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (U.S. 2013) (categorical approach framework for matching elements to generic crimes)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (U.S. 1990) (elements-based comparison framework)
- Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (U.S. 1973) (definition of obscenity in sexual terms)