good morning ladies and gentlemen we are here and with us by video is judge over her so you will see her on the screen at the podium and we are ready for our first case cases i should say united states again nichols venue to prosecute failure to register as a sex offender is proper in the departure jurisdiction wisconsin in the state well the halting of a nickel simply that once nichols moved from cancer to see no longer own offender does not a registration obligation in the jurisdiction which he or she then leaves but that's a different question than the venue question and and the point that we make in our reply brief is that nichols doesn't address the venue precisely because there was no underlying sex offense excuse me no underlying section twenty two fifty offense in that class at this point in its turn it didn't say anything about thank you  ration certainly that is a way in which in which the court interprets cases however here the supreme court itself recognized that it was construing section twenty two fifty in a relatively unusual circumstance that of international travel particularly reading your reply brief that sex offenders do not violate the law when they leave the jurisdiction for a period of less than seven days if i recall correctly so if somebody is a registered sex offender in wisconsin and they go to iowa for a wedding for a true day weekend and they come back or even a four day weekend they have not violated the law  correct so even though they've traveled in interstate commerce and so i think the argument that is one that one can start with nichols is that what the court has told us in nichols is because there is no obligation to the departure place there's no violation it's just a background fact sort of like being insured by the f b i c is a background fact for bank robberies  and there they're all kinds of background facts you don't have a violation lessers been movement into the state where you didn't register but surely it's the first washington save for the one case  lagged and then if she had gone to washington then gone on to california and then gone on to nevada and so on there would have been a continuing offense once she had committed the offense but there's no offense until there's a failure to register in the new state  coles correct so you couldn't have venue in kansas since no crime has been committed in kansas correct with this cover yet however the the niggers exposed the loophole and sort of nichols leaves kansas and then he gets outside of maybe you are precisely right and you should go to congress and say who you know when you forgot to put in anything about departure state you created a loophole well that's exactly what we did and that's exactly what congress fix with respect to nichols and said when you leave the departure jurisdiction and you get outside of soreness reach then you actually have violated sort and so there was a congressional fix which the court in nichols the supreme court in nichols recognized here however it's a different analytical question there's venue in the state of washington or the state of minnesota it would be the government's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they had committed this file ation and perhaps they would say i tried to register but it was the wrong place or you know and that's an affirmative has to exactly that in other words it's not a conceded violation you would be entitled in the jurisdiction where the facts are going to be most readily available to try to prove that they violated that's a that's certainly a fair point i want to get back over to the thrust of your earlier comment about analogizing this to sort of an f b i see where the that's just simply a jurisdictional predicate the supreme court the car has made quite clear and this court has also recognized travel is different with respect to a section twenty two fifty of sorts it's really jurisdictional but it's more than that and it's the conduct at which congress took aim and at least one court the eleventh circuit in has held that precisely the fact that you are traveling from one state to another is what creates the venue or permits venue in the departure jurisdiction but your problem is it's not travel speak to that i believe the answer and perhaps my my colleague on the other side can answer more precisely is that both violated wisconsin law i believe wisconsin does require some sort of notification before leaving and therefore were to or were detained under state law now and we're not making the argument that the fact that they violated state law is what creates venue as a matter of whether detain or i do not believe so unlike a run a bar or a case where you have that issue that that's not why they were brought back into the state  but again if we thought that interstate travel triggers the offense the other state travel didn't begin until the defendant set foot outside of the wisconsin state line and reading where you've got already the obligation to register the and the trouble then the ultimate failure to register judge grosvenor's point is that if they're just going from from milwaukee to clay or they're in wisconsin even if somewhere in the back of their mind they're thinking maybe i'll go from claire to st paul but that there's no interstate travel until they cross the boundary of wisconsin and they're not in wisconsin anymore that's true but the their fact of traveling out of state is precisely that what creates federal jurisdiction but the federal jurisdiction yeah tony had to laugh wisconsin intending move to minnesota the day she arrived she says you know this is too cold for me and she turns around she comes back with sore no violated can we say that the offense was trenchard if she returns within three business days then and she doesn't appear then that she would actually have ever registered as you're sorry violated section twenty two fifty but certainly that's not me even though she had the intent when she left no band in wisconsin that's that's close on her bank accounts she you know found a new you know ended her lease you know whatever if she then returns to the residence that she left she hasn't in fact change your residence at that point and so yes i think there would be no or so in a sort of violation but these questions go to a different they will be the wording questions about when sorn it is violated that are distinct from if someone is violated where they may be prosecuted given that the may be affirmative defenses in this case here the core question is may be prosecuted in wisconsin and not only because it's an element of the offense it's also something that continues to affect wisconsin sorn as registration procedures require minnesota and with washington to then inform wisconsin about to move that fast which in turn you have made by not registering in the rival jurisdictions that is also not triggered and so you have the effects wisconsin registry affected as well as a matter washington it's it's possible in this case there may be instances where statute of limitations problems exist there are also resources on the state to the other i'm sorry i think she meant originally no i meant my point is  if in a particular case you would be indicted in the departure jurisdiction and then the statute of limitations runs in the matter so it would it's true in this case it would have been possible you could imagine cases where it would not well it sounds like wisconsin is holding these defendants anyway still as a matter of practicality the cooperation between the jurisdictions within the same state makes more sense if any was appropriate rather than sending them back to the states to which they travel certainly not also speaks to the underlying policy concerns that venue which we argue in defendant's i think agreed or not it is up i'm out of time hopefully i can still come back and i'll write some rebuttal thank you good morning and may it please the court i guess i'll start by addressing sort of the outside the record concerns the judge wrote morass about my understanding is that ms has slipped in mr tony were brought back to wisconsin up based on violations of their preexisting state supervision in other words that not only quote unquote absconded from sex offender registry they ups conduct from state supervision that brings us a little bit back to a question that judge would you were asked thing about nichols may have preyed upon a loophole whereby at the time storen it didn't require a person departing the country to register and the department of justice went to congress and that's now been fixed here we've kind of got a different kind of loophole if the government wishes to have at least two options for venue in any given sort of case they can lobby congress to amend the federal statute to require that a sex offender departing a state notice the state from which they're departing why does it require an amendment of the substantive offense the venue statute clearly covers this because it provides that if the offense is forgotten continued or completed in any jurisdiction venue is lapse so that's a conflation of the offense beginning and the offense being completed it must mean two different things in the context of an interstate travel violation so agreed as discord acknowledged in us vs sanders the travel element of a twenty two fifty eight prosecution is the means by which defendants like hasta legend tony who were convicted of state sex offenses become subject to federal regulation they with federal regulation now hanging over their heads as they travel west it sort of monitored their activity they had a grace period in the jurisdictions to which they arrived and a crime occurred it began in wisconsin not in minnesota and washington that's just metaphysically and physically impossible your honor obviously if the court could include that the offense commenced with getting in the car boarding a train in wisconsin then you get proper in wisconsin there's there's no other way to look at it are you conceding that all crimes begin and end in different jurisdictions i don't know why you couldn't have many crimes that both begin take place and end all in the same state a bank robbery begins with somebody planning and they go over to the bank and then they rob it and it takes place and it ends all in the same state so so i'm confused that you're conceding or it maybe i misheard you that begin carry out and are all different places necessarily by myself a bit in the position of arguing against myself but bank robbery is not a continuing crime it's an event so what what about  a continuing crime such as being a felon in possession of a firearm you're that continues to be a crime as long as you have the firearm as long as you have the firearm correct so is there a different state element to that no no i mean you can start from the documents the manufacturer on the backs of the case and how you understand the crime whether begin carry out and are all the same place or with there in different places i think what you need to explain is why your theory that there is that this is all in the state where the registration doesn't happen as that's to say the destination state isn't undermined by the supreme court's decision and car where the court says this isn't just a jurisdictional hook it's an important part of the conduct the traveling your honor i think kar much ultimately it's get we have to follow car of course obviously certainly the holding of car but not necessarily the commentary of car the holding of car is that because the travel occurred  travel the defendants in car were not subject to they weren't sex offenders required to register so sequence was out of order because travel happened then sorta created which required the registration requirement and then a lack of registration sort of the car then went on to speak to its perspective on what someone a is intended to target and it did say that travels at the heart of soreness but we know from the examples that your honor has already asked of the government that sex offenders can travel rather freely it's only up to the point they establish a residence do they then have the three day window the government's theory of sort of the retroactive commencement of the offen they've not offered any other federal offense that has a retroactive commencement and where is your honor mention one twenty two g i find nine twenty four c to be perhaps the best analogy that's possession of a firearm in furtherance of crime possessing a firearm is a continuing course of conduct so you can imagine a scenario where the defendant acquires a gun in east st louis and possesses it for some period of time and then crosses into missouri to commit a crime of different interstate travel offense at an essential element of the offense we know that based on current based on what the statute itself says so the offense necessarily commences in one place is the crossing of state lines with the requisite intent and then the failure to register in the new jurisdiction if the registration to be kicks in after three days this is a different form of travel than we encounter under other statutes so for instance the act travel in furtherance of prostitution the prostitution is an ongoing thing at the time of travel and the travel is for the purpose of that substantive offense here the way the statute operate the travel is a precondition to the actual criminal conduct which is the failure to register that's right so the offense begins in one state and is completed in another when there is a failure to register and perhaps there we fall back so you're just saying wishing between precondition and element what's the difference that you see deal of travel is legal whereas none of prostitution is yes and under sor no you've got the ability to change your mind overriding of things can happen in the receiving jurisdiction such that no crime has ever occur and i think that is what makes sort of travel different then travel under other statutes and with that it must the court has further questions in there with it and by asking that of the judgments of the decisions of the district court the effect all right and i will in fact give you another minute mr pearce since you were interrupted by let me speak directly to the car and the fact that if that that travel it was central to the holding if it wasn't central and his car itself explains then offenses like nine twenty two g where it is just a jurisdictional predicate you know you it wouldn't matter when those actually happened here the travel is an element that must be proved up and that in cases like this where it's a state based sex offender has to start somewhere and it started as judge sykes pointed out under was in wisconsin and not only because it's an element but also because of thirty two thirty seven both its first and second sentences that allow for prosecutions for us or where something begins and also defines in the second sentence that a continuing offense is an offense that involves transportation and interstate commerce and here we have to accept the affair or the court has to accept the facts as alleged the indictment alleged travel from wisconsin to these other states so it's different than a nine twenty two g offense where you and other offenses where really we're talking about a jurisdictional predicate as opposed to something as car made clear not only in its holding but in its rationale the travel is central thank you all right thanks to both counsel and please take the cases