United States v. Simpson
4:10-cr-00169
E.D. Mo.Mar 5, 2024Background
- Kenneth Robert Simpson pled guilty in 2011 to receipt of child pornography and was sentenced to 60 months' imprisonment and lifetime supervised release.
- Simpson’s supervised release was revoked three times for various violations, each resulting in additional prison terms.
- The current proceedings involve a fourth petition to revoke supervised release, after Simpson failed to report to a residential re-entry center and did not register as a sex offender from 2019 until his arrest in 2023.
- Simpson, acting pro se, filed motions to dismiss the revocation petition, to strike his prior conviction, and to dismiss for selective prosecution.
- The Magistrate Judge held an evidentiary hearing, recommended denial of all motions, and Simpson filed objections. The District Court conducted de novo review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Simpson's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of supervised release statutes | Eighth Circuit has upheld these post-Haymond | 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) and (k) unconstitutional under Haymond | Statutes are constitutional |
| Constitutionality of SORNA | Eighth Circuit has upheld SORNA/2250(a) | SORNA exceeds federal power, violates 10th Amendment | Statutes are constitutional |
| Collateral attack on prior conviction | Valid challenges must be through direct appeal/§2255 | Prior conviction for child pornography unconstitutional, lacks jurisdiction | Improper collateral attack |
| Selective prosecution | No evidence Simpson prosecuted for improper purpose | Being singled out for challenging registration, cites a purported similar defendant | No credible claim shown |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 2369 (Supreme Court applied due process to certain revocations, but does not invalidate all of § 3583)
- United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910 (Proper method for challenging conviction is direct appeal or habeas, not revocation proceeding)
- BPS Guard Servs. v. NLRB, 942 F.2d 519 (Eighth Circuit precedent is binding on district courts)
- United States v. Peterson, 652 F.3d 979 (Standard for proving selective prosecution claim)