967 F.3d 57
1st Cir.2020Background
- Seward, a Massachusetts-convicted sex offender, moved from Massachusetts to New York and did not update his SORNA registration.
- A Massachusetts federal grand jury indicted Seward under 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a) for being required to register, traveling in interstate commerce, and knowingly failing to register.
- Seward moved to dismiss for improper venue, relying on Nichols v. United States and the Seventh Circuit’s Haslage decision.
- The district court denied the motion, holding that the interstate-travel element is part of the § 2250 offense and that venue is proper where the travel began (the departure jurisdiction).
- Seward entered a conditional guilty plea reserving the venue issue and appealed; the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue for a § 2250 prosecution may lie in the departure jurisdiction where interstate travel began | United States: venue proper where the offense began (departure state) because interstate travel is a conduct element of § 2250 and part of the locus delicti | Seward: venue improper in Massachusetts; under Nichols the crime occurs only where the failure to register occurs (New York), so departure jurisdiction is not proper | Affirmed: venue is proper in the departure jurisdiction because, for state offenders, interstate travel is an element of § 2250 and part of the nature of the offense; Nichols does not control the venue question |
Key Cases Cited
- Carr v. United States, 560 U.S. 438 (2010) (construed § 2250 as having sequential elements and characterized interstate travel as conduct at which Congress took aim)
- Nichols v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1113 (2016) (held SORNA did not require a federal offender to update registration in a former jurisdiction abroad)
- Haslage v. United States, 853 F.3d 331 (7th Cir. 2017) (divided panel applying Nichols to conclude venue in departure jurisdiction improper)
- Kopp v. United States, 778 F.3d 986 (11th Cir. 2015) (held venue proper in departure jurisdiction)
- Holcombe v. United States, 883 F.3d 12 (2d Cir. 2018) (applied Carr to hold offense begins where travel departs)
- Lewis v. United States, 768 F.3d 1086 (10th Cir. 2014) (venue proper where travel began)
- Lombardo v. United States, 241 U.S. 73 (1916) (failure-to-file cases show locus delicti may be the place of the required act)
- United States v. Anderson, 328 U.S. 699 (1946) (venue determined from the nature of the crime and location of act(s) constituting it)
- Rodriguez-Moreno v. United States, 526 U.S. 275 (1999) (explained limits of the verb-test and how to identify the conduct comprising an offense)