United States v. Robert Lunsford
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 16102
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- Lunsford, a sex offender subject to SORNA, pleaded guilty to failing to update registration after moving from Missouri to the Philippines.
- He moved on May 3, 2011, registered in Missouri, but did not update his address when he departed for the Philippines.
- He was arrested in the Philippines on July 20 and later deported back to the United States.
- The indictment charged a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a) for failing to update a registration as required by SORNA.
- The district court denied the motion to dismiss, and Lunsford entered a conditional guilty plea.
- The central legal question is whether SORNA requires updating in Missouri when the offender relocates abroad.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does SORNA require updating in Missouri after moving abroad? | Government: Missouri remains a jurisdiction involved. | Lunsford: Missouri is not involved after departure; no update required. | No; Missouri not a jurisdiction involved once departure occurs. |
| Does present-tense 'resides' include the period after a change of residence? | Government relies on continuing residency in a jurisdiction. | Lunsford: 'resides' is present tense; not satisfied by past residence. | Present tense governs; cannot require update in a former domicile. |
| Should Howell and policy considerations override the text to extend liability for abroad moves? | Howell supports prosecution; policy aims to prevent evasion within U.S. borders. | Howell was dicta and policy arguments do not expand statutory text to abroad moves. | Howell dicta and policy concerns do not alter the statutory text; dismissal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Murphy, 664 F.3d 798 (10th Cir. 2011) (discussed whether leaving a domestic jurisdiction requires updating a registry)
- United States v. Howell, 552 F.3d 709 (8th Cir. 2009) (venue related to where offense commenced; dicta on updating in domestic registry)
- United States v. Voice, 622 F.3d 870 (8th Cir. 2010) (habitual locale supports registration in the jurisdiction of habitual residence)
- United States v. Carr, 130 S. Ct. 2229 (U.S. 2010) (present-tense interpretation of 'resides' under statutory text)
- United States v. Van Buren, 599 F.3d 170 (2d Cir. 2010) (policy arguments about comprehensive registration discussed in context)