Case ID: f-appx_409/html/0993-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MEMORANDUM \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Jay DIETRICH, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-30138.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Oct. 6, 2010.
    Filed Jan. 19, 2011.
    Marcia Kay Hurd, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Eric B. Wolff, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Michael Donahoe, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of Montana Helena Branch Office, Helena, MT, for Defendantr-Appellant.
    Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, and THOMAS and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

The Supreme Court has held that 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a) “does not apply to sex offenders whose interstate travel occurred prior to SORNA’s effective date.” United States v. Begay, 622 F.Bd 1187, 1195 (9th Cir.2010) (citing Carr v. United States, — U.S. ---, 130 S.Ct. 2229, 2232-33, 176 L.Ed.2d 1152 (2010)). In United States v. Valverde, 628 F.3d 1159, 1167-69 (9th Cir.2010), we held that, for persons like Dietrich who were convicted of sex offenses prior to the statute’s enactment, SORNA’s registration requirements became effective on August 1, 2008. This date is thirty days after the Attorney General published guidelines that accorded with the APA’s requirements and announced SORNA’s retroactive applicability. Id.; see 5 U.S.C. § 553; Office of the Attorney General, The National Guidelines for Sex Offender Registration and Notification, 73 Fed.Reg. 38,-030, 38,046-47 (July 2, 2008); see also United States v. Utesch, 596 F.3d 302, 311 (6th Cir.2010).

Dietrich’s interstate movement as an unregistered sex offender concluded in April 2008, several months before SORNA’s registration requirements applied to him. We therefore reverse his conviction. Carr, 130 S.Ct. at 2233.

REVERSED AND REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.