Case ID: f-appx_486/html/0473-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose MONTEJO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-50130
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 21, 2012.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Philip J. Lynch, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Donna F. Coltharp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before SMITH, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Jose Montejo raises arguments that he concedes are foreclosed by United States v. Heth, 596 F.3d 255, 258-59 & n. 3 (5th Cir.2010), which held that (1) the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) was a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and (2) the defendant’s conviction under SORNA did not violate his due process rights even though (a) the states in which he traveled had not yet implemented SOR-NA and (b) he had not received actual notice of SORNA’s registration requirements. See United States v. Whaley, 577 F.3d 254, 258-62 (5th Cir.2009). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.