United States v. William Brockbrader

MEMORANDUM

William Brockbrader appeals his conviction for one count of violating the Sex Offender Registration Notification Act (“SORNA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2250 (a)(l)(2)(A)-(B), (a)(3). He also challenges two conditions of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and affirm.

1. The incidents that Brockbrader identifies as prosecutorial misconduct did not, either individually or cumulatively, violate his right to due process. See United States v. Necoechea, 986 F.2d 1273, 1282-83 (9th Cir.1993).

a.The testimony of a Nevada Senior Deputy Attorney General regarding an injunction entered in ACLU of Nevada v. Cortez Masto, 719 F.Supp.2d 1258 (D.Nev. 2008), rev’d in part, ACLU of Nevada v. Masto, 670 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir.2012) (the “ACLU injunction”), properly addressed the injunction’s impact on Nevada sex offender registration obligations and the State’s efforts to address public confusion. The district court properly instructed the jury regarding the limited use to which it could put the ACLU injunction and this testimony. Brockbrader’s other challenges to this testimony also are unavailing. See Fed.R.Evid. 701 (governing lay witness opinion testimony);…