## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 10
- 3132 U NIT ED S TATE S OF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. K ENNETHL EE T A Y L OR, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 3:10- cr -30032- MJ R- 1

—Mi ch ael J . Reagan, Judge . A RG UE D F EB RU AR Y 11, 2011

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 7, 2011

Befo re B AUER, P OSNERa nd W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges . B AUER, Cir cu i tJudg e . Kenneth Lee Tay l orente re d an open pl ea ofgui l ty, witho ut the b en efi t o fa ple a a gr eem ent, f orf ai l i ng to r egi ste r as a s ex o ffende r in vi ol ati on o fthe Se x Offender Regi str ati on and N oti fi cati on Act ( S ORN A), 1 8 U. S
. C
. § 22 50
. The di st r i ctc o ur t j udg e se ntence d Taylor to e i ghtee n m onths i n pri son, twenty yea rs o fsuperv i sed r el eas ed, and a $ 100 speci alas se ssme n tfe e . We a ffi r m.2 N o. 10
- 3132 I . B AC KGR OUND Tayl orw as s ervi ng i n the N avy w hen he was char ged wi th f o r c ib l e s o do my i n v i o l a t i o n o fthe Uni f o r m Co de ofM i l i tar y J usti ce ( U CM J ), 1 0 U
. S. C. § 9 25. H e pl eaded gui l ty, and a g en er alco urt- m ar ti alse ntenced hi m to se ve n months i n pr i so n. A s r eq u ire d by S OR N A , Tayl orr egi ste re d as a se x offe n d er in 2 00 3 a n d liste d an a d d re ss in E as t St . L ou is as hi s r esi dence. I n 200 6, the I l l in ois S tat e Po l i ce di sc ov er ed th at T ay lor w a s n o l on ge r re sid in g a t h is re gi ste re d a dd re ss and that he had not up dated hi s r egi str ati on t o re fl ect thi s chang e. D espi te m any a tte m pts, author i ti es did notl oca te Tayl orunti l ea rl y 2 010. I n Apri l 20 10, Tayl or pl eaded gui l ty to f ai l i ng to r eg i st era s a se x o ffen der
. W hi l e r el eased o n b o nd a nd aw ai ti ng se ntenci ng, Tayl ora ga i n changed r esi dences w i thout up dati ng hi s s ex o ffender re gi str ation or noti fyi ng the U ni ted S tat es Pro bati on Offi ce. T h e d ist ric t c ou rtj u d ge cla ss ified T a y l o r as a T ier II I se x o ff e n d e r a n d c a l c u l a t e d th e Un i t e d S t a t e s S e n t e n c i ng G uid eli ne range to be 24 to 30 m ont hs i n p rison an d 5 years to l i f e o fsuperv i sed r el eas e. The j ud ge sentenced Tayl or to 18 m onths i n pri son and 20 y ear s ofsuperv i sed r el ea se , buthe i ndi ca te d a wi l l i ng ne ss t o r edu ce the supe r v i s e d r e l e a s e t e r m i fT a y l o r r e mai ne d o uto f tr oubl e f ora “si gni fi cant” am ount o fti m e.N o. 10
- 3132 3 II. A N A L Y S IS T h e d e f e n d a n tp r e s e n t s t wo i s s u e s o n a p p e a l
. He fi rs t a rgues t h at the dis tr i ct c ourti m proper l y c l ass i fi ed Tayl oras a Tie r I I Ise x offe n d er , and he then ar gues that hi s s entence i s unre aso nabl e. W e di sag re e.
A . T h e S tatu tory F ram ew ork SORN A re quir es sex offenders to re gi ste r i n the j u ri sdi c t i o ns i n whi c h the y l i v e , wo r k, o r g o t o s c ho o l
. 1 8 U. S
. C. § 2 2 5 0
. T he t e r m “ s e x o ffe nd e r ” i s de fi ne d a s “ a n i nd i v i dual wh o w as convi cted o fa s ex of f e nse . ” 4 2 U.S
. C. § 1 6911 ( em phasi s a dd ed). A se x offen se i s “ a crim ina l offen se that ha s an e lem ent invol vi ng a sexualacto r sexual conta ct with anothe r,” and a cri m i nal o ffense i s “ a S ta te , l o ca l, t r iba l, f o r ei g n, o r m i l i ta r y o ffen se ( to the extent speci fi ed by t he S ecr eta ryo fDefense und er s e c t i o n 115 ( a ) ( 8 ) ( C) ( i ) o fP ub l i c La w 1 0 5
- 1 1 9 ( 1 0 U. S
. C. 951 note ) )
. ” Id. ( em p ha sis add ed ). Pu b li c Law 10 5- 119, r efer enced abo ve, pro vi des that the S ecr eta ryo fDefense “sh al l speci fy c ate gor i es of conduct punishabl e under th e Un i f or m Code of M i l i tar y J usti ce which encom passes a ra nge o fco nd uct c o mp a r a b l e t o th a td e s c r ib e d i n . . . th e V i o l e n tC r i me Cont ro l a nd La w En f o r c e men tAc to f1 9 9 4 ( 4 2 U. S
. C. § 14 07 1( a) ( 3) ( A) an d ( B) )
. ” Se ct i o n 1 40 71 o fthe Vi o l en t Cr i m e Con tro l Acte st ab l i sh ed th e J ac o b W et te r l i ng A ct, and 32 C.F .R . § 635. 7 ( w hi ch w as enacte d und er the a uthor i ty ofthe J aco b W ett er l i ng Act) sta tes , So l die rs wh o ar e co nvi c ted byco urt- m ar ti alf or c er ta in se x u al off en se s m u st co m p ly w ith a ll4 N o. 10
- 3132

C o u rt s-m a r t i a l r e c o g n i z e th e o ff e n s e o f“ f o r c ib l e so d o m y .” See, 1 e. g., U n i te d Stat es v. R a n gel , 6 4 MJ
. 6 7 8 , 6 8 4 ( AF. Ct
. Cr i m . App
. 20 07 ) (exp lain ing tha t force is an elem en t of th e o ffe nse o f “ forcib le sod om y ”). A cco rd ing to the M an u al for C ou rtsM ar t i al, “[ t ] hatthe ac twas done by f or c e and wi thoutthe con se n t of the oth er p erso n” m ay b e ad d ed as an “elem en t” u nd er U C M J A rticle 12 5, as ap p licab le. M an u al F or C ou rtsM a rt ia l U n ite d St a te s, p t. IV , ¶ 51 (b ) (20 0 8 ). appli cabl e s tat e r egi str ati on r equire m ents i n effect i n th e s t a t e i n wh i c h th e y r e s i d e . . . . T h i s i s a s t a tu
to r y r equi r ementb as ed o n the J ac o b W et te r l i ng A c t, an d im p lem en te d by D O D Ins tr u c tio n 13 25 .7. DO D I nstr ucti on 1 325. 7, i n turn, co ntai ns a “L i sti ng o f Offenses Requi ri ng S ex Offender Pro cess i ng. ” I t pr ovi des , “ co nvicti o ns o fa ny o fthe f o l l o wi ngo ffen se s puni shabl e under the Unif or m Code of M ili tar y J usti ce shal l tr i gge r re quir em ents to noti fy S tat e a nd l oca l l aw enf or cem ent a genci es and to provi de i nform ati on t o i nm ate s co ncer ni ng se x offender re gi strat i on r equi re m ents. ” See http: //w w w . dti c. m i l /whs/di re cti ves/ cor re s/ pd f/1 3250 7p. pd f( l astvi si ted J uly1, 20 11)
. One of th e list ed offe n se s is “F or c ible Sod om y.” Id. 1 Theref or e, thro ugh a ser i es of cros s refer ences, SORN A r equi re s ind i vi du als w ho a re co nvi cted o f c e r t a i n s e x o ff e n s e s u n d e r th e U C MJ

— in c lu d in g for c ible s o d o my
— to register as a sex offend er. I n additi on t o defini ng the te rm s “ sex offender” and “sex off ense, ” 4 2 U.S
. C. § 1 6911 cl ass i fi es sex o ffenders i nto th re e d iffer en t c at eg or ies :N o. 10
- 3132 5

Tayl or c onc ede s that f or c ibl e s odom y i s s i m i l ar t o a vi ol at i on 2 of18 U.S
. C. § 2241, w hich prov ides, “W ho ever, i n the speci al m a ri tim e a n d te rr ito ri a l ju ri sd ic tio n o ft h e U n ite d St a te s . . . know ingly ca u se s another pers on to engage i n a s exual act by usi ng f orce againstthatother pers on, ” s h a ll be im pris oned f or up to li f e. ( 2) Ti erIse x offender T h e te rm “Ti erIse x offender” m eans a s ex o ffender oth er than a Tier I Ior T ier I I Isex offend er. ( 3) Ti erI Ise x offender The ter m “Ti er I Ise x offender” m eans a s ex o ffender othe r tha n a T i e r I I Is e x o ffe nd e r wh o s e o ffe nse i s punis habl e byi m pr iso nm ent form or e than 1 y ear an d

— ( A) i s co m par ab l e to o r mor e se ve r e th anthe follo w in g off en se s . . . (iv) a b u s ive se x u al c on ta c t (a s d es c rib ed in se c tio n 22 44 of T itle 18 ) .
. . . ( 4) Ti erI I Ise x offender The ter m “Ti erI I Ise x offender” m ean s a sex offender w hose o ff ense i s punis habl e b y i m pri sonm ent for m o r e th an1 y ea r a nd

— ( A) i s co m par ab l e to o r mor e se ve r e th anthe follo w in g off en se s . . . ( i ) a ggr avat ed sexualabuse o r sexualabuse ( as describ ed in s ecti ons 2241 and 224 2 o f T itle 18 ) .
. . . 26 N o. 10
- 3132 These t i erl eve l s a re i ncor pora ted i nto the U ni ted S tat es S en te nc i ng Gui del i ne s an d us ed to det er m i ne the defen dant’s bas e o ff ense l eve l
. U
. S. S. G. § 2 A 3. 5.
B. M odif i ed Cate gori cal A pp r oach To cal cul at e th e ad vis or y G uidel i ne r ange f ora vi ol ati on of SORN A , the j ud ge m ust fi rs t deter m i ne th e d efen d an t’s tie r c las sific at i on . See U. S
. S
. G. § 2 A3. 5. The j udg e us ua l l y a cc o m pl i sh es thi s ta skb y e xa m i ni ngthe el em ents of t he st atute under wh i ch the defe nd ant was convict ed
. Thi s i s ca l l ed the “cat ego ri calapproa ch. ” See U nited S ta te s v. Sm it h , 544 F.3d 781 , 786 (7th C ir. 2008); B ega y v . U nited Sta t es , 553 U
. S. 137, 141 (2008 ). H ow ever, because the sta tute und erwh i ch Tayl or w as co nvi cted pr o h ib i t e d a l l s o d o my
— w hetherco nsensual, f or cibl e, or inv olv in g a ch ild

— th e j udg e i n this ca se a l so e xam i ned the c ha r g i ngdo c ume ntt o de t e r mi ne the ty pe of s od om y t o w h ich th e d efe n d an t p lea d ed g u ilty . Th is is c alle d th e “ m o d i f i ed ca te go ric al a p p ro ac h .” Se e Sm it h , 544 F. 3d at 786 . Tayl orco ntends thatthe j ud ge’ s use o f th e m od ified ca te go ric al a p p ro a c h co n st itu te s re ve rs ible er ro r, a q u es tio n of law w h ich w e re vie w d e n ov o. U n ited Sta tes v. Fra nc o -Fern a nd ez , 511 F. 3d 768, 769 (7th C ir. 2008). A l though w e h ave neveraddress ed w hethera j ud ge m ay us e the m od ified ca tegorical i n th is p a r t icu lar circum sta nc e, w e hav e hel d that when a st atute pro scr ibes m ul ti pl e ty pes o fc o nduc t, s o m e o fwhi chwoul d c o nsti tute a vi ol ent fel ony and som e o fwh i ch w oul d not, a j ud ge m ay exam i ne a “l i m i ted r ange ofaddit i onal m ateri al ” i n o r dert o de te r m i ne whethe r the de fen dan tN o. 10
- 3132 7 pl ea ded g ui l tyt o the po rtion o fthe s ta tu te tha t co nst itu te s a vio len t fe lon y. See id. ( ci ti ng Sh epa rd v . U nited Sta tes , 544 U .S. 13 , 16-1 7 (2 00 5 ); Ta ylo r v. U nited Sta tes , 49 5 U .S. 57 5, 60 2 (1 99 0); Uni t e d S t at e s v . S pell s , 5 37 F. 3d 74 3 , 74 9 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ); Uni t e d S t at e s v . M athe ws , 45 3 F
. 3d 83 0, 83 3-3 4 (7 th C ir. 2 0 06 )). Th e ra tio n ale be h in d th is rul e a pp l i es w i th equalf or ce t o thi s ca se. Tayl orwas convi cted under 1 0 U .S. C. § 9 25, a sta tute th at p rohibits sod o m y i n alli ts form s. I t is th erefore i mpo s s ib l e t o de t e r mi ne fr o m t he f a c e o fthe st atute whethe r Ta y l o r pl ea ded gui l tyt o f o r cibl e so do m y, c o nsensualso dom y, o r sodom y o fa chi l d. Consequentl y, und erthe cate gor i calapproa ch, f or cibl e so dom y c onvi ctions u nd er 10 U
. S. C
. § 925 w ou ld alw ays b e a T ier I off ense. W e nee d not co nfi n e ourse l ves to the c ate gor i cal approach i n thi s ca se , how eve r, bec ause the s tatute a t i ss u e h e r e p r o h ib i t s mu l t i p l e ty p e s o fc o n d u c t, i n c l u d i ng “f or cibl e s odom y, ” which is co nsi dered to be an o ffense w i th di ff er ent e l em ents than “sod om y” al one. See su p ra P ar t A ; U ni t e d S t at e s v. Woods , 57 6 F
. 3d 400, 403 -07 (7 th Cir
. 2009 )
. W e ther ef or e affi rm the dist ri ct cour t’ s u se o f the m odi fi ed cate gor i calapproa ch and hol d that a j ud ge m ay exam i ne a l i m i ted se t o faddit i onalm ate
ria ls

— s uc h a s the c ha r g i ng i ns t r ume nt i n thi s ca se

— to deter m i ne the por ti on o f10 U
. S. C. § 9 25 to w hi ch th e d efe n d an t p lea d ed gu ilty
. C. Reasonable ness oft he Sen t ence The Se ntenci ng Guidel i ne r an ge f orTayl or ’ s o ffense w as 24 to 30 m ont hs i n p rison an d 5 years to life o f su p er-8 N o. 10
- 3132

The governm ent argues that w e should revie w the se n te nce 3 f or plai n err or beca u se Taylor f ail ed to objec t t o his s ente nce as u nr easo na b le in the d istrict cou rt. W e ha v e rep eate d ly re jec te d th is a rg u m en t. S ee U n i te d S ta te s v . D a le, 498 F. 3d 604, 6 1 0 & n .5 (7 th C ir . 20 0 7 ). vi sed r el eas e. A l though the j ud ge sente nced Tayl orto a pr i s o n t e r m tha t wa s b e l o w the Gu i de l i ne r a ng e ( 18 m on th s) a n d a su p er vis ed rele as e t er m th at w as w ith in th e G u id elin e ra n ge (20 ye ar s), T ay lor c h alle n ge s h is sente nce as unrea sonab l e. W e r ev iew the subst anti ve r ea so nabl en es s o fhi s se nt en ce f o r abus e o fdi sc r et i o n. 3 A se ntenci ng j ud ge m ust consul t the S entenci ng Guidel i ne s a nd c o ns i de r the f a c t o r s s e tf o r th i n 1 8 U. S
. C. § 35 53 ( a)
. W he r e, a s he r e, a s en te nc e i s wi th i n the advi sor y Gui del i ne r ange, the sente nce is pre sum ed re as on ab le. SeeU nite d State s v. H il ls , 61 8 F
. 3d 619, 63 6 (7th C ir. 2010). A l though t h e d i str i ct c ourtf ound that Tay l ori s no t dangero us and that h e m ai ntai ned stea dy em plo ym ent, the di s t r i c tc o ur ta l s o noted tha tT a y l o r c o mm i t t e d a ver y s er i ous s ex o ffense and i ntenti onal l y r efu se d to re gis te r as a sex offe n d er for se ve n ye ar s. T h en , w h ile o uto n b o nd f o r f ai l i ngt o r eg i st era s a se x o ffen der, T ay l o r ag ain ch an ge d res id en c es w ith ou t u p d at in g h is re gi str ati on. The j ud ge w as ri ghtl y c oncerned by thi s, especi al ly i n l i ght o fthe f act that SORN A r equi re s Tay l or t o r e g i s t e r f o r th e r e s to fh i s l i fe . G i v e n the se f ac t s , we cannot say thatTayl orhas ove rco m e the pre sum pti ve re aso nabl eness o fhi s s entence .N o. 10
- 3132 9 I I I . C ONC L US I ON Forthe f or ego i ng r eas ons, we A FFIRM the d efen d an t’s sente nce.

7- 7- 11