United States v. Mark Steven Elk Shoulder

Good Law
696 F.3d 922·2012 WL 4748439·2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 20810
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 5, 201210-30072California5,291 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ikuta, J.

This appeal challenges the constitutionality of certain key provisions of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). Pub.L. 109-248, Tit. I, 120 Stat. 590 (2006) (codified in scattered sections of the U.S.C.). Defendant Mark Steven Elk Shoulder was prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 2250 (a) for failing to comply with the sex offender registration requirements set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 16913 . He now argues that his conviction was invalid, because SORNA violates the Ex Post Facto Clause and the Due Process Clause, and because Congress lacked the constitutional authority to enact SORNA. We reject these constitutional challenges, and affirm the judgment of the district court.

I

SORNA was enacted in response to “Congress’ awareness that pre-[SORNA] registration law consisted of a patchwork of federal and 50 individual state registration systems.” Reynolds v. United States, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 975, 978 , 181 L.Ed.2d 935 (2012) (citing 73 Fed.Reg. 38045 (2008)). SORNA sought to improve the uniformity and effectiveness of those systems by, among other things, “creating federal criminal sanctions applicable to those who violate the Act’s registration requirements.”…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.