United States v. Parks
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 21503
| 1st Cir. | 2012Background
- Parks was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a) for traveling in interstate commerce and failing to update his SORNA registration.
- Parks had Massachusetts sexual offenses in 1990 and 1996 and was notified to register under SORNA in 2006.
- He registered in Massachusetts but moved to Maine in 2009 and was warned by a Maine police officer to register there.
- He resided in a Maine motel from Nov. 21, 2009, was located by police Feb. 8, 2010, and Massachusetts probation violation led to a two-and-a-half-year state sentence.
- In May 2010, Parks was federally indicted for travel and failure to update under SORNA, pled guilty with a conditional appeal, and received a 35-month federal sentence consecutive to the state sentence.
- The Court analyzes whether SORNA’s application to pre-SORNA offenses is constitutional under the Ex Post Facto Clause, the scope of Congress’s Commerce Power, delegation to the Attorney General, and the propriety of a consecutive federal sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ex post facto challenge to SORNA | Parks argues SORNA punishes pre-SORNA conduct. | Parks contends applying SORNA retrospectively increases punishment. | Ex post facto claim rejected; SORNA not punitive as applied. |
| Commerce Clause authority | Parks challenges federal reach over pre-SORNA conduct. | SORNA validly regulates interstate commerce. | SORNA upheld as valid exercise of Congress’s Commerce Power. |
| Delegation of legislative power | Argues improper delegation to the AG regarding pre-SORNA offenders. | SORNA provides intelligible principles and on-the-ground delegation to AG. | Delegation upheld; intelligible principle satisfied. |
| Sentencing—consecutive vs. concurrent | District court erred by not treating sentences as concurrent. | Judge properly exercised discretion; consecutive sentence justified by factors. | Affirmed; consecutive 35-month federal term within guidelines. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reynolds v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 975 (2012) (determines timing of pre-SORNA applicability for pre-enactment offenses)
- Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003) (civil regulatory nature of registration; not punitive for ex post facto)
- United States v. DiTomasso, 621 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 2010) (Commerce Clause authority for SORNA pre-enactment offenders (vacated in part but persuasive))
- United States v. Gagnon, 621 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2010) (SORNA applicability and pre/post-enactment considerations)