United States v. Darryl Walizer

MEMORANDUM

Defendant-Appellant Darryl Owen Wal-izer appeals his conviction and sentence for violating 18 U.S.C. § 2260A. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

. 1. Walizer argues that § 2260A is void for vagueness because it does not clearly establish (1) when a person is required to ’register as a sex offender, (2) what law governs the registration requirement, and (3) whether a defendant may be convicted of violating § 2260A contemporaneously with the predicate offense. Because Wal-izer does not claim that § 2260A implicates his First Amendment rights, he is limited to an as-applied challenge. United States v. Purdy, 264 F.3d 809, 811 (9th Cir.2001). “In an as-applied challenge, a statute is unconstitutionally vague if it 'fail[s] to put a defendant on notice that his conduct was criminal.’ ” United States v. Harris, 705 F.3d 929, 932 (9th Cir.2013) (quoting United States v. Kilbride, 584 F.3d 1240, 1257 (9th Cir.2009) (alteration in original)).

First, the statute uses the word “being” to describe the defendant’s registration status, and “being” refers to “the quality or state of existing.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 199 (2002). It…