Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01505/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01505-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Francisco Jorge-Salgado
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the District of Minnesota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 07-1505 

________________

United States of America,

Appellee,

v.

Francisco Jorge-Salgado,

Appellant.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the

District of Minnesota.

________________

Submitted: January 15, 2008

Filed: April 2, 2008

________________

Before BYE, BEAM and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

________________

GRUENDER, Circuit Judge.

Francisco Jorge-Salgado pled guilty to charges of possession with intent to

distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) and

possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2).

The district court1

 sentenced him to 120 months’ imprisonment and five years’

supervised release. As a condition of his supervised release, the district court also

ordered Jorge-Salgado to register as a sex offender based on his previous conviction

Appellate Case: 07-1505 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/02/2008 Entry ID: 3419517
-2-

of criminal sexual conduct. Jorge-Salgado appeals this condition claiming that the

Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”), Pub. L. No. 109-248, §§

101-155, 120 Stat. 587, 590-611 (2006) (codified as 42 U.S.C. §§ 16901-16962), did

not apply at the time of his sentencing. We affirm. 

I. BACKGROUND

Jorge-Salgado spent a significant portion of his youth in multiple juvenile

detention centers because Minnesota adjudicated him a juvenile delinquent. At one

such center, Jorge-Salgado, at the age of fifteen, forcibly sodomized a fellow juvenile.

Based on this incident, he was adjudicated delinquent for criminal sexual conduct in

the third degree in 1993. Consequently, Minnesota law required him to register as a

predatory sex offender through December 28, 2003. 

Jorge-Salgado continued his criminal activities after he reached the age of

majority. In 2005, he was convicted of a felony domestic assault, which required him

to re-register as a predatory sex offender. On May 16, 2006, a federal grand jury

returned a 56-count superseding indictment against Jorge-Salgado and twenty-six

other individuals for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute

various controlled substances between January 1, 2000 and March 7, 2006. The

indictment also charged Jorge-Salgado with possession with intent to distribute 50

grams of methamphetamine, possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime

and possession of a firearm by a felon.

On June 29, 2006, Jorge-Salgado pled guilty to the offenses of possession with

intent to distribute methamphetamine and possession of a firearm by a felon. The

presentence investigation report (“PSR”) determined a total offense level of 25, a

criminal history category of VI and an advisory sentencing guidelines range of 110

to 137 months. It also indicated that Jorge-Salgado may be required to register as a

sex offender. PSR ¶ 37. Neither party objected to the PSR.

Appellate Case: 07-1505 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/02/2008 Entry ID: 3419517
-3-

At sentencing, the district court granted a United States Sentencing Guidelines

§ 4A1.3 downward departure and reduced Jorge-Salgado’s criminal history category

from VI to V, resulting in an advisory guidelines range of 100 to 125 months. The

district court then sentenced Jorge-Salgado to 120 months’ imprisonment and five

years’ supervised release. As a condition of his supervised release, the district court

ordered Jorge-Salgado to register as a sex offender based on his prior conviction for

criminal sexual conduct. Jorge-Salgado objected to this condition. The district court

responded, “I want to make sure this is correct, but if it’s required by law I will require

it, if it’s not required, I won’t.” In the judgment filed the next day, the district court

required as a condition of supervised release that Jorge-Salgado “register with the

state sex offender registration agency in the state where the defendant resides, works,

or is a student as directed by the probation officer.” Jorge-Salgado filed a timely

notice of appeal. 

II. DISCUSSION

“We review the district court’s imposition of the terms and conditions of

supervised release for an abuse of discretion.” United States v. Boston, 494 F.3d 660,

667 (8th Cir. 2007). We recognize that the district court is afforded wide discretion

in imposing supervised release conditions. Id. 

The district court must impose certain conditions that are mandated by federal

law and may impose other discretionary conditions to the extent they meet certain

statutory requirements. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d); Boston, 494 F.3d at 667. JorgeSalgado argues that the district court abused its discretion by requiring him to register

as a sex offender as a condition of supervised release because the condition is not

reasonably related to the offenses of conviction. See United States v. Scott, 270 F.3d

632, 636 (8th Cir. 2001) (holding that the district court abused its discretion in

imposing conditions of supervised release that were tailored for a prior sex offense

conviction because the conditions were not reasonably related to the current offense

Appellate Case: 07-1505 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/02/2008 Entry ID: 3419517
-4-

of armed bank robbery). He then argues that registration as a sex offender was not a

mandatory condition under federal law because SORNA was not determined to be

retroactively applicable until after he was sentenced. Congress enacted SORNA on

July 27, 2006. It provides that “[t]he court shall order, as an explicit condition of

supervised release for a person required to register under the Sex Offender

Registration and Notification Act, that the person comply with the requirements of

that Act.” Pub. L. No. 109-248, § 141(e) (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. §

3583(d)). Congress envisioned that this requirement could apply retroactively: “The

Attorney General shall have the authority to specify the applicability of the

requirements of [SORNA] to sex offenders convicted before July 27, 2006 or its

implementation in a particular jurisdiction, and to prescribe rules for the registration

of any such sex offenders . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 16913(d). On February 28, 2007, the

Attorney General issued a regulation that required SORNA to “apply to all sex

offenders, including sex offenders convicted of the offense for which registration is

required prior to the enactment of that Act.” 28 C.F.R. 72.3 (2007). Jorge-Salgado

asserts that the retroactive application of SORNA’s sex offender registration

requirement was not a condition mandated by federal law until February 28, 2007.

Because Jorge-Salgado was sentenced on February 15, 2007, before the Attorney

General issued the regulation, he claims that the district court had no authority to

apply SORNA’s registration requirement retroactively to him. 

Federal law requires the district court to “order, as an explicit condition of

supervised release, that the defendant not commit another Federal, State, or local

crime during the term of supervision . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d). Jorge-Salgado’s

failure to register as a sex offender would have violated this mandatory condition of

supervised release because he would have committed a state crime under Minnesota

law if he did not re-register as a sex offender based on the present convictions. See

Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 5(a) (establishing criminal penalties for knowingly

violating registration requirements). Under state law, his 1993 forced sodomy

conviction required Jorge-Salgado to register as a predatory sex offender through

Appellate Case: 07-1505 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/02/2008 Entry ID: 3419517
-5-

December 28, 2003. Id. at subd. 6(a) (requiring ten years of registration). In 2005,

Minnesota law required Jorge-Salgado to re-register for ten years as a result of his

felony domestic assault conviction. See PSR ¶ 44; Minn. Stat. § 243.167 (requiring

individuals who have completed the registration requirements to re-register for

violations of Minn. Stat. § 609.2242, subd. 4 (felony domestic assault)); Minn. Stat.

§ 243.166, subd. 6(a) (requiring ten years of registration). State law further provides:

“If a person required to register under this section is subsequently incarcerated

following a conviction for a new offense[,] . . . the person shall continue to register

until ten years have elapsed since the person was last released from incarceration or

until the person’s . . . supervised release . . . period expires, whichever occurs later.”

Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 6(c). As a result of his convictions and incarceration in

this case, Minnesota law requires Jorge-Salgado to register as a sex offender and

remain registered for ten years after his supervised release period expires. Because

Jorge-Salgado’s failure to register would constitute a state crime under Minnesota law,

the sex offender registration condition imposed by the district court was simply a more

specific pronouncement of the mandatory condition that he not commit a state crime

during his term of supervised release. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its

discretion in requiring Jorge-Salgado to register as a sex offender as a condition of

supervised release. See United States v. Talbert, 501 F.3d 449, 452 (5th Cir. 2007)

(“[I]t is axiomatic that a district court can include as a condition that the defendant

obey the law.”).

Jorge-Salgado also argues that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(h)

requires the district court to give advance notice of its intent to impose sex offender

registration as a condition of supervised release. See United States v. Atencio, 476

F.3d 1099, 1108 (10th Cir. 2007) (citing United States v. Bartsma, 198 F.3d 1191,

1199-1200 (10th Cir. 1999)). Our circuit has not adopted this interpretation of Rule

32(h), and we need not decide whether to do so at this time. Jorge-Salgado had

Appellate Case: 07-1505 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/02/2008 Entry ID: 3419517
-6-

sufficient notice because paragraph thirty-seven of the PSR, which he received in

advance of sentencing, indicated that he may be required to register as a sex offender.

We conclude that the PSR provided sufficient notice. 

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s decision to require Jorge-Salgado to

register as a sex offender as a condition of supervised release. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-1505 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/02/2008 Entry ID: 3419517