dismiss for improper venue the statutory scheme in the case states that a sex offender should register upon release from prison in the state in which they were convicted and within three days of where they reside work or our student in this case mr holcombe was released in the state of new york and lived in the state of new york for a while and at some point in two thousand and fifteen he  went to the state of maryland and eventually resided there those were the facts that were stipulated at the trial the there's a crime occurs when the  station crime occurs when the offender resides in one place for three days for at least three days and then does not register in that place so the government would not have any crime  against mr holcombe until he had resided in maryland for at least three days the government's position is that the crime started when he left new york state and continued until he arrived in the state of maryland the seventh circuit seventh circuit recently held on april third of this year that the elements of the violation of the crime for failure to register sequential and not distinct or independent and that the actor traveling from one state to another is not the predicate for the offense so in this case our position is that twenty two fifty which is the crime that mr holcombe was alleged to have violated in the indictment has three elements that the person is required to register that they travel in interstate commerce and that they fail to register but with the way that the government and the district court would like this statute interpreted it would mean that mr holcombe can be prosecuted in every state in which he traveled in till he ended up residing in the state of maryland and that's an absurd result oh well then he well if he traveled through several different states that would be a ridiculous result if we could get there is no crime until you actually live somewhere if you went to a wedding for example as the haas lives court said if you went to a wedding in illinois there's no crime there because he wouldn't he would have returned back he's cut out the whatever you want to describe it certainly with respect to the other states but the starting state  state as a matter of him stay dry it's only a starting state in hindsight in this case because there was just no crime simply until he started residing in maryland and notice that he's gone and take measures to try to locate him trying to understand what he was required to register in the state of maryland and then it's the state of maryland my understanding is that it's the state of maryland but i notifies the state of new york that he's now residing in the state of maryland the other problem with the requirement with the area that he can be prosecuted in both states in mr holcombe's particular case is that there would be no see enter proven in the mr holcombe is case there was a star trial on stipulated facts which are set forth in a balanced brief and none of them set forth that mr holcombe left new york with the intention of  two which is way before the sorn a sex offender registration act the if the ready to legislate or make law is interested entirely to congress and to united states obligation to change registration is the obligation to give new registration to make a new registration arise soley because one moves in interstate commerce or does that arise only when one changes one's residen in other words if he had gone to maryland for three days and come back to that require a registration no your honor the update is an update when existing registration is only required when there's a change in the in one's name residence employment or education status and so merely taking a visit to another state would not trigger that update requirement under so not going to be truly live at least with respect to the message and see requirement for thirty days in the other state so i don't understand your argument because you're the the argue with he was not required to have a new residence u he abandoned residence in new york and took up a new resident has to change registration if he changed his residence even within the same state right that's correct your honor but it's because he became a resident of maryland instead of new york that he needed a new registration right he there are actually two independent bases for why he needed to update his registration here yawner first we know in our brief that when he was released from jail in two thousand thirteen on a different charge not on the on the underlying sex offense but actually on a state failure to update his registration conviction when he was released in two thousand and thirteen soon there after he filed an update with the state authorities he provided a false address  haven't charged him in this case he wasn't convicted of that crime was he with you charged with that crime here the theory of the case of the charge was that independently when he moved to maryland and took up residence the another obligation to update his registration in that the new york venue would be proper if he were had been charged with giving a false address when he registered in new york in two thousand and thirteen and is released from prison but you didn't charge him with that that's right your honor so that he was charged with failing to register when he took up residence in maryland after having previously resided in new york that's correct your honor and somehow it seems to me that if somebody who resides in new york  registered in new york and leaves new york without any intention to change his residence and you didn't prove any intention to change residence when he left new york and goes to maryland and spends thirty days or more in maryland he's then by virtue of having spent thirty days in maryland he becomes a a resident of maryland after the passage of thirty days or after the passage of some time that makes him a new  interstate journey started in new york but it wasn't because he traveled interstate that he was required to register it was because he spent thirty days or more and became a resident of maryland so unless you unless you proved that u nless you prove that that he had an intention to take up residence in maryland when he left new york were to abandon his new york residence it seems to me that unless you have a different theory to argue that no part of the crime was committed in new york with respect your honor congress itself has determined otherwise so congress said that the essential conduct elements of the crime so member of the venue test you look at what are the conduct what are the acts that are the essential elements of the crime congress explicitly said as interpreted by the supreme court in car well the first conduct element is the interest they travel itself the interest they travel is an essential element and in car the supreme court explained that that interstate travel was not a jurisdictional predicate it's not merely the trigger that gives you federal jurisdiction it is also an essential element that congress was targeting exactly honest congress was specifically concerned about convicted proper in those states i agree with your honor that the logic would also extend to the states in between to the extent the court has any concerns of you might be helped somewhat by the proposition that if the statute explicitly makes the state of his prior residence one of the places one of the two places that he can register when he changes his residence so that the failure the failure to register occurred in two places the failure to register was something he could have done you know if i can find could address the concern about the intervening states to the extent the court has any concern about that one it's not raised in this case because venue was brought in the departure state but to a future court if it were encountering that issue it could address those concerns using the substantial contacts test that is layered on top of venue so under the substantial context test your honor the court can inquire into things as to whether this is an interim one of the intermediate states is truly a place that makes sense and is fair to the defendant in terms of bringing a prosecution there is a court case that said that the registration in new york the registration once departure is something that the receiving state and so and so that could be the departure state or it could also be the rival state that the defendant could have done it in either place the register would notify the other exactly so the defendant could have done it in either place but the fact that the interstate travel itself is that is one  sential conduct element of the crime necessarily means that both the departure state and the arrival state are in companies that's correct your honor to have to be an element that's a departure have to be an element of the offense  be a part of the thing that is done in the course necessary well the test is typically frame in terms of essential conduct elements however the supreme court has advised not to be too rigid in application of this test so for example you don't just look at verbs you also look at encompass conduct that necessarily is part of the conduct of the crime so for example in one thousand and four c charge the crime of violence that the gun is used in furtherance of is part it is an essential conduct of that crime here the court doesn't need to get into those fine details because travel interstate is explicitly  forth in the statute as a contact element and current supreme court and car specifically pointed to that interstate travel as being part of congress is very concerned it is the very evil that congress was concerned and wanted to target in the offense and so in light of in light of car consistent with the requirement that you that you're obligated to change your registration if you change your residence within the same city with however we wouldn't charge that wouldn't be prosecutable under twenty to fifty until interstate travel occurred so that that that that further strength strengthens the point congress set up and sort of a civil registration requirement that includes a requirement to initially register and update whether or not you travel interstate so even if you stayed in new york your entire life you would have and you moved within the southern district let's say you just moved down the block you would still have to update your registration under the civil side of sort of congress to find the crime though as when you travel inter state and fail to register in your new after changing a residence and again that's because congress specifically was concerned when it and act sort of with sect sex offenders traveling interstate and falling through the cracks when they just state when they just move within one state congress said we don't need to criminalize that because the states can handle that they they can police that on their own however it's specifically when they travel interstate and they fall through the cracks and fall through the loopholes that is what congress was specifically targeting when it an act of the criminal penalty provision of sworn thank you thank you sixteen twenty one that says a sex offender is registered record i'm sorry a sex offender is required to notify only one jurisdiction involved and that jurisdiction must then notify a list of interested parties including the so it makes sense in this case that he would only have been required to register in maryland once he set up residence there it doesn't make sense that the interstate commerce requirement of the statute