### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o

. 0 9

- 5 0 8 3 4

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A

,

P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e

v

.

J E S U S M A R R U F O

, a l s o k n o w n a s J e s u s D u r a n M a r r u f o , a l s o k n o w n a s J e s u s M a r r u f o

- D u r a n ,

D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

A p p e a l f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t

f o r t h e W e s t e r n D i s t r i c t o f T e x a s U S D C N o

. 3 : 0 9

- c r

- 1 8 1

- 1

B e f o r e H I G G I N B O T H A M

, D A V I S

, a n d B E N A V I D E S

, C i r c u i t J u d g e s

.

P E R C U R I A M : *

J e s u s M a r r u f

o a p p e a l s h i s c o n v i c t i o n f o r f a i l i n g t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e S e x

O f f e n d e r R e g i s t r a t i o n a n d N o t i f i c a t i o n A c t ( S O R N A )

, a v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U

. S

. C

. 1

§ 2 2 5 0 ( a )

. F o u r i s s u e s r e m a i n , e a c h o f w h i c h i s f o r e c l o s e d b y c o u r t p r e c e d e n t

.

F i r s t

, M a r r u f

o m a k e s w h a t h e i s c a l l i n g a s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e e v i d e n c e c l a i m

.

T h e p a r t i e s a g r e e t h a t t h e g o v e r n m e n t h a d t o p r o v e t h a t M a r r u f o ( 1 ) w a s U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D

June 15 , 20 10

Lyle W . Cayce
Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 , the court has det erm ined that thi s op inion s hould not *

be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 .4.

See 42 U. S. C. § 1 6913. 1 Case: 09-50834 Document: 00511142305 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/15/2010N o

. 0 9

- 5 0 8 3 4

r e q u i r e d t o r e g i s t e r u n d e r S O R N A

, ( 2 ) t r a v e l e d i n i n t e r s t a t e o r f o r e i g n

c o m m e r c e , a n d ( 3 ) “ k n o w i n g l y f a i l [ e d ] t o r e g i s t e r o r u p d a t e a r e g i s t r a t i o n a s

r e q u i r e d b y [ S O R N A ]

. ” M a r r u f o f o c u s e s o n t h e t h i r d p r o n g , u r g i n g c o n v i c t i o n 2

r e q u i r e s p r o o f t h e d e f e n d a n t “ k n e w ” t h e s p e c i f i c S O R N A r e q u i r e m e n t s

. W e h a v e

c o n s i s t e n t l y r e j e c t e d t h i s t y p e o f a r g u m e n t

, c o m m e n t i n g t h a t “ i g n o r a n c e o f t h e

l a w i s n o t a d e f e n s e ” a n d “ ‘ S O R N A ’ s c r i m i n a l p r o v i s i o n i s n o t a s p e c i f i c i n t e n t

l a w

. ’ ” 3

S e c o n d

, M a r r u f o s u g g e s t s t h a t h i s c o n v i c t i o n v i o l a t e s d u e p r o c e s s b e c a u s e

T e x a s h a s n o t y e t i m p l e m e n t e d S O R N A ’ s p r o v i s i o n s

. T h i s c o u r t h a s a l r e a d y

r e j e c t e d t h a t l i n e o f a t t a c k

. T h i r d

, M a r r u f o a r g u e s t h a t

, w i t h S O R N A

, C o n g r e s s 4

e x c e e d e d i t s a u t h o r i t y u n d e r t h e C o m m e r c e C l a u s e

. T h e d e f e n d a n t c o n c e d e s t h i s

a r g u m e n t i s f

o r e c l o s e d b y U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. W h a l e y

. L a s t

, M a r r u f o u r g e s t h a t 5

S O R N A v i o l a t e s h i s d u e p r o c e s s r i g h t s f o r n o t g i v i n g s e x o f

f e n d e r s n o t i c e o f i t s

r e g i s t r a t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t s , b u t c o n c e d e s t h a t W h a l e y a l s o f

o r e c l o s e s t h i s

a r g u m e n t

. A F F I R M E D

.

6

See 18 U. S. C. § 2 250( a). 2

Uni ted States v. Wha le y , 577 F.3d 254, 262 n.6 (5t h Cir. 2009) (quo ting Uni ted States 3

v. Go uld

, 568 F.3d 459, 468 (4t h Cir. 2009) ); see al so Uni ted States v. Cont r e r a s , 2010 WL

2332073

, at *1, 2010 U. S. App

. LEXIS 11552, at *2–*3 (5t h Cir. June 7, 2010) (unp ublis hed) ; Uni ted States v. Mc Broom

, 2010 U. S. App

. LEXIS 11113, at *2–*3 (5t h Cir. June 1, 2010 ) (unp ublis hed) ; Uni ted States v. Knez ek

, 2010 WL 1655321

, at *1, 2010 U. S. App

. LEXIS 8585,

at *1–*3 ( 5th Cir. Ap r. 26, 201 0) (unp ublis hed) ; Uni ted States v. Pue nte

, 348 F. App ’x 7 6, 77 (5t h Cir

. 2009) ( unpub lis hed)

.

See Uni ted States v. He th

, 596 F.3d 255, 258–60 (5t h Cir. 2010)

. “Texas

. . . had a se x 4

off ende r regis try in wh ich [d efe ndant ] coul d have regis ter ed, as was requir ed of him. ” Id

. at

259.

577 F. 3d at 258–61.

5

Id. at 261 –62. 6

2 Case: 09-50834 Document: 00511142305 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/15/2010