United States v. Trent
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16120
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Trent, indicted December 12, 2007, for failing to register under SORNA after traveling in interstate commerce.
- Convicted sex-offender with pre-SORNA convictions; failure to register occurred between November 2 and November 25, 2007.
- District court denied motion to dismiss, holding SORNA valid and retroactivity governed by AG rules; Ohio not yet implementing SORNA did not bar registration.
- Trent entered a conditional guilty plea under Rule 11(a)(2) reserving appellate review of the denial, and was sentenced to 36 months and lifetime supervised release.
- This Sixth Circuit decision addresses whether SORNA applied to Trent at the time of his indicted failure to register, focusing on retroactivity and AG rulemaking authority.
- Court reverses and dismisses the indictment, holding Trent was not required to register under SORNA on the date of his indicted failure to register.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SORNA applies retroactively to pre-implementation offenders | Trent argues SORNA applies from enactment or implementation, not requiring AG rules for retroactivity. | Trent argues retroactivity is governed by AG rules; Ohio had not implemented SORNA, so no liability. | SORNA does not apply to pre-implementation offenders before AG rules final (Aug 1, 2008). |
| Whether AG rulemaking could retroactively apply SORNA to pre-implementation offenders | Cain/Utesch compel retroactivity by AG rules; no liability before August 1, 2008. | AG may specify retroactivity; retroactivity could apply even if states not implemented. | AG regulations final and effective August 1, 2008; retroactivity did not apply to Trent. |
| Whether pre-implementation offenders must register under SORNA notwithstanding states' implementation status | Pre-implementation offenders were already bound by SORNA once enacted; state's implementation irrelevant. | State implementation delays applicability; AG rules control applicability to pre-implementation offenders. | Not actionable under SORNA until AG rules specified retroactive applicability (Aug 1, 2008). |
| Whether Trent's pre-implementation status is distinct from pre-enactment status for retroactivity purposes | Cain/Utesch framework covers both pre-enactment and pre-implementation groups; Trent falls under AG-specification. | Pre-enactment logic cannot be transferred to pre-implementation without explicit reasoning. | Pre-implementation category requires AG specification; not actionable before Aug 1, 2008. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cain, 583 F.3d 408 (6th Cir.2010) (SORNA retroactivity delegated to AG; not effective until proper rulemaking)
- United States v. Utesch, 596 F.3d 302 (6th Cir.2010) (AG retroactivity regulations effective Aug. 1, 2008; final SMART Guidelines control)
- Carr v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2229 (S. Ct. 2010) (first SORNA element is a registration requirement; pre-travel prior to enactment not liable)
- United States v. Shenandoah, 595 F.3d 151 (3d Cir.2010) (pre-enactment offenders treated differently across circuits; not controlling here)
- Hinckley, 550 F.3d 926 (10th Cir.2008) (pre-enactment offender immediate liability debated; not binding in Sixth Circuit)