United States v. Quinton Manning
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 8478
| 8th Cir. | 2015Background
- Manning was arrested in El Dorado, Arkansas, and charged under 18 U.S.C. § 2250 for failing to register as a sex offender under SORNA.
- The district court denied Manning’s motion to dismiss the indictment; Manning entered a conditional guilty plea and appeals the denial.
- SORNA requires a sex offender to register in every jurisdiction where the offender resides and to update within three business days of changes in name, residence, employment, or student status.
- Manning’s prior sex offense was a 1997 Texas conviction; he moved to Arkansas in late 2010 or early 2011 and did not register there.
- SORNA’s applicability to pre-enactment offenders hinges on the Attorney General’s authority under § 16913(d), and whether rulemaking by the AG validly specifies retroactive applicability.
- The court reviews these issues de novo and concludes the district court properly denied dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether delegation to the AG to specify applicability violates nondelegation. | Manning argues the AG’s authority is unconstitutional delegation. | United States contends prior Eighth Circuit precedent forecloses this challenge. | Foreclosed by precedent. |
| Whether SORNA is constitutional under the Commerce Clause as interpreted in Sebelius. | Manning asserts Commerce Clause limits apply to pre-enactment offenders. | United States argues SORNA remains valid under controlling circuit authority. | Foreclosed by circuit precedent. |
| Whether the SMART Guidelines and related rulemaking validly specified pre-enactment applicability under APA. | Manning challenges the validity of the SMART Guidelines as an APA substantive rule. | United States contends the Guidelines were proper rulemaking and retroactivity was properly addressed. | AG’s rulemaking valid; guidelines constitute proper substantive rulemaking. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kuehl, 706 F.3d 917 (8th Cir. 2013) (nondelegation challenges foreclosed by circuit precedent)
- Reynolds v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 975 (U.S. 2012) (statutory specification required for pre-Act offenders)
- United States v. Brewer, 766 F.3d 884 (8th Cir. 2014) (Interim Rule invalid; retroactivity issues on pre-enactment offenders debated)
- United States v. Knutson, 680 F.3d 1021 (8th Cir. 2012) (SMART Guidelines issue not decided in that case)
- United States v. Lott, 750 F.3d 214 (2d Cir. 2014) (upholds APA rulemaking in similar context)
- United States v. Whitlow, 714 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 2012) (APA notice-and-comment satisfied in retroactivity context)
- United States v. Stevenson, 676 F.3d 557 (6th Cir. 2013) (APA rulemaking authority to interpret and implement SORNA)
- Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979) (general rulemaking principles for interpretive/substantive actions)
- Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass’n, 135 S. Ct. 1199 (U.S. 2015) (notice-and-comment requirements for rulemaking)
- United States v. Mattix, 694 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2012) (APA rulemaking considerations relevant to retroactivity)