Background

• W.B.H. was convicted of first-degree rape in 1987 under Alabama Youthful Offender Act; no registration requirement then.
• In 2009, W.B.H. was convicted of conspiracy to distribute drugs; district court imposed SORNA sex-offender registration as a supervised-release condition due to the prior rape conviction.
• SORNA, enacted in 2006, raises ex post facto questions when applied to pre-SORNA offenses that are not sex crimes.
• The issue is whether applying SORNA registration as a condition of supervised release violates the Ex Post Facto Clause when based on a youthful-offender sex offense.
• The court follows Doe’s two-step analysis to classify SORNA as civil/regulatory rather than punitive.
• The panel holds SORNA is civil and non-punitive, applying it to W.B.H. does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Doe v. United States, 538 U.S. 84 (U.S. Supreme Court 2003) (two-step Doe ex post facto analysis for regulatory schemes)
• Ward v. United States, 448 U.S. 242 (U.S. Supreme Court 1980) (guides the severity of punishment inquiry in ex post facto)
• Hendricks v. United States, 521 U.S. 346 (U.S. Supreme Court 1997) (civil regulatory regime framework in ex post facto context)
• Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93 (U.S. Supreme Court 1997) (retribution/deterrence as traditional aims of punishment)
• United States v. Dean, 604 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2010) (AGU decision on pre-SORNA registration applicability)
• United States v. Powers, 562 F.3d 1342 (11th Cir. 2009) (in-person registration aids tracking of offenders)
• United States v. Juvenile Male, 653 F.3d 1081 (11th Cir. 2011) (vacated; persuasiveness not persuasive value)
• Doe v. Alaska, Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (U.S. Supreme Court 2003) (Alaska registry held civil; in-person specifics discussed)