United States v. Scott Becker
682 F.3d 1210
9th Cir.2012Background
- Becker pled guilty to knowingly taking or receiving obscene material from an interactive computer service under 18 U.S.C. § 1462.
- District court sentenced Becker to 60 months’ custody and 3 years’ supervised release with conditions including sex offender treatment.
- Becker violated supervised release by not attending treatment.
- District court revoked supervised release, imposed 9 months’ custody, 27 months’ new supervised release, and ordered Becker to register as a sex offender under SORNA.
- Becker appeals the SORNA registration condition, challenging plain-error or merits-based justification for the condition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SORNA registration is warranted for Becker. | Becker (Becker) argues no clear sex-offender finding; improper condition. | Becker contends the district court did not adequately justify the registration condition. | SORNA registration required; Becker’s admissions show a sex offense. |
| Whether the district court committed plain error by not making explicit findings. | Becker asserts lack of explicit SORNA findings. | Government argues record shows the registration condition was reasonable without explicit findings. | No plain error; record shows reasonableness of registration condition. |
| Whether the registration condition was discretionary or mandatory under SORNA. | Becker claims it was not mandatory. | Court could impose any reasonable condition; likely discretionary. | Registration condition affirmed as permissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Begay, 622 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2010) (SORNA retroactive to all sex offenders; age of victim considerations)
- United States v. Mi Kyung Byun, 539 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2008) (non-categorical approach using underlying facts to classify offenses as sex offenses)
- United States v. Snellenberger, 548 F.3d 699 (9th Cir. 2008 (en banc)) (courts may rely on plea colloquy in modified categorical analysis)
- United States v. Hammons, 558 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir. 2009) (plain-error standard for challenged supervised-release conditions)
- United States v. Rudd, 662 F.3d 1257 (9th Cir. 2011) (court need not state reasons for each condition if apparent from record)
- United States v. Blinkinsop, 606 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2010) (reasonableness of conditions can be apparent from record)
- United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (2002) (standard for plain-error review (three elements))