The H on. Ly nn S. Ad el m an, Un it ed St ates D is tr ic t Court  f or the Eas t er n Di s t ri c tofW i s c ons i n, s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.



## 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

- 1786 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. D ONAL D L EA CH, D ef endant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Indian a, S outh Bend D ivisi on. No . 3:09- CR-00070

—Rob ert L. Miller, Jr. , Judge .
A RG UE D O CT OB ER 18, 2010

— D ECI DE D M AY 3, 2011

Befo re P O SNER an d W OO D , C ircu it Judges , a nd A DE LMA N , D i s t r i ctJudg e .  W OO D , C ircu it Judge. Do na l d Le a c h mov e d fr om In d ian a t o So u th C ar olin a in lat e 2 0 0 8 w ith ou t p ro m p tly n ot ifyin g g ov er n m en t o fficia ls ineith er st at e. T h is w ou ld be u nrem arkab le i f L each had not bee n con victed of a2 N o. 10

- 1786

sex o ffe ns e i n 1 9 9 0 , b uth e h a d. T ha tc o nv i c t i o n t r i gge re d a r equi re m ent purs uant to the Se x Offender Regi strat i on and N oti fi cat ion A ct ( “SORN A ”) , 18 U
. S. C. § 2 250( a) , to re gi ste r w i th Ind i ana a nd S outh Car ol i na authoriti es w hen he m ove d acro ss sta te l i ne s. U nbeknownst to L ea c h, a n a n o n ym ou s c alle r re p or te d to Ind ian a o fficia ls th at L each had m oved ou t of state shortly after his dep art u r e . In F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 9 , Le a c h t a r d i l y p a s s e d th e s a me i nfo rm ati on a l ong t o the Ind i ana chi l d supp or t e nfo rce m en t o ffi ce . At n o t i m e di d he r eg i st erwi ththe au th or itie s i n S ou th C ar olin a. T h e fo llow in g w ee k, a depu ty U ni ted S tat es M ar sh al a nd a l oca l o ffi cer arrested Le ach , w ho w as th en return ed t o Ind iana, w he re he was i nd i cted f orkno w i ngl y f ai l i ng to r egi ste r as a se x offe n d er aft er tra ve lin g in int er st at e c om m er c e in vi ol ati on o fS OR N A . L each m ove d to dism i ss hi s ind i ctm ent, a r g uingtha tS OR NA vi o l a t e s the Ex P o s tF a cto Cl au se o fthe Uni te d S ta te s an d I ndi an a Con st i tu ti o ns . The di st ri ctc o ur t den i ed Lea ch ’ s m o ti o n t o di smi ss , a nd Lea che nt er ed a co ndi tionalg ui l typl ea whi l e pr es er ving his r i g htt o a ppea l tha t so l e i ss ue . W e fi nd no ex p os tf

ac t o vi o l at i o n a nd a ffi r m the j udg m en t o fthe dist ri ct c ourt
.
I T h e m ate ri alf acts i n thi s ca se ar e no t di sputed. Do n ald Lea chw as co nv i ct ed o fc hi l d m o l es ta ti o n, a Cl as s C fel o ny u n d er Ind ian a la w , onA p ril 11 , 199 0. Ju st be for e h is re l eas e f ro m pri son i n 1994, I nd i ana’ s fi rs t sex offender re gis tr ati on s tatute went i nto effect. A l though the st ateN o. 10

- 1786 3 l aw o bl i ged Leach t o re gist er u pon hi s r el eas e fro m pri son, h e fa i l ed to r egi ste r at that ti m e. In 200 4, Leach w as aga i n re l eas ed fro m an In d ian a pri son on a n unrel ate d theft co nvi cti on. A t tha t tim e, Leach s i gned St ate Fo rm 46 65 6, “N oti fi cati on o fRequi re m ent t o R egister w ith L aw En forcem en t as Sex/V iol en t O ffen der. ” He re gi ste re d that y earwith the W abas h Co un ty Sheri ff’ s De pa r t men t
. In 2 0 0 7, h e s i g ne d a si m i l arf or m r ei ter ating Ind i ana’ s r egi str ati on r equi re m ents and speci fying thati fhe c hanged hi s r esi dence he would be re quir ed to r egi ste r i n hi s ne w co unty o f re si dence w i thi n thr ee w or ki ng days. On Septe m ber9, 2008 , Leach re gi ste re d a gain w i th the W abash C ounty Sher i ff’ s sex o ffender re gi str ati on o ffi ce. W hen he m ove d to So uth Carol i na l ate r that yea r, how eve r, Leach fail ed to up date hi s r eg istrat i on with I nd i ana a uthor i ti es or re gi ste r i n So uth Caro l i na. On Jul y 2 7, 20 06, Congr es s pass ed SORN A “t o prot ect the publ i c fro m se x offenders” byestabl i shi ng a “co m prehensi ve nati onalsy ste m f orthe re gis tr ati on o ftho se offen ders” as parto fthe A dam W al sh Chil d Prot ecti on a n d S a fe ty Ac to f2 0 0 6
. S ee 4 2 U. S
. C
. § 1 6 9 0 1
. S O R NA i m po s e s a fe de r a l o b l i g a t i o n o n a l l s e x o ffe nd e r s to re gi ste r i n each j uri sdic ti on wh er e he re si des, works , and goe s t o schoo l

. § 1691 3( a)
. ( W e und er st an d thi s t o requ ire regis t ration in each of th ese p laces, ifthey are differ ent; i t would m ake no sense to thi nk tha t r egi str ati o n i s ne ce ss ar y o nl y i fa l l thr ee ha ppen to b e i n the s a me j ur i s d i c t i o n . ) T h e s t a t u t e ma k e s i ta fe d e r a l c r i me for an y p er so n w h o is re q u ire d to re g i s t er an d tra ve ls i n i nter sta te com m er ce know i ngl y t o f ai l to regi ste r or4 N o. 10

- 1786 updat e a r eg i st r at i o n. 1 8 U. S. C
. § 2 25 0( a)
. The g o ve r nm en tc ha r g e d L e a c h f o r a kno wi ngf a i l ur e t o r e g i ste r and up date hi s regi str ati on a ftertr avel i ng i n i nter sta te com m er ce f ro m J anuary 6, 2009 , to February 20, 2009. Lea chc o ndi ti o na l l y pl ea ded g ui l tyt o the s i ng l e- co unt i nd i ctm ent and the dist ri ct cour t i m posed a 27

- m onth term o fi m pri sonm ent a nd thr ee yea rs o fsuperv i sed r e l e a s e . T hi s a pp e a l f o l l o we d.

II A A s a prel i m i narym att er, the dist ri ct c ourtco rr ectl y con clud ed that v e n u e w as p rop er i n th e N orthe rn D ist ric t o f Ind ian a e ve n th ou gh L ea c h w as arr e st ed in S o uth Ca r o l i na . S o m e m ayfi nd thi s su r pr i sing, s i nc e th e Si xth A m endm ent pr ovi des that“[ i ] n al l cr i m i nal pro se c ut i o ns , the a c c us e d s ha l l e nj o y the ri ghtt o a s pe e dy and p ub li c tr i al, b y a n i m par ti alj ur y o fthe S ta te a nd d ist ric t w h er ein th e c rim e s h all h av e b ee n co m m itt ed

. . . .” U
. S. C O NST . a me n d

. V I
. F o r p u r p o s e s o fS O R NA, h o wev er, a se x o ffen der vi o l at es th e st atut e o nl y when he tr avel s a cro ss sta te l i nes a nd f ai l s t o re gi ste r. S ee Carrv. U nited Sta tes, 13 0 S
. Ct. 22 29, 22 40 ( 2010) ( obs er vi ng tha t th e “ ac t o f tra ve l” is m o r e t h an a “ju ris d ict ion al p re d icate ” f or§ 2250 , i t i s “ the v er y conduct at w hi ch Co ng r e s s t o o ka i m”)
. F e de r a l l a w s a y s tha ta nyo ffe nse “begun i n one d ist ri ct a nd co m ple ted i n another, o r com m i tte d i n m or e than one distric t,” m ay be pr ose cuted “in a ny di st r i cti n whi chs ucho ffen se was b egun, c o nti nued , o r com ple ted. ” 1 8 U.S
. C. § 3 237( a)
. S O R N A r e-N o. 10

- 1786 5 qui r ed Lea cht o upda te h is reg i st r at i o n wi thIndi an a au th o r i ti es whenhe l eft th e st at e, s ee § 1 69 13 ( c) , a nd re gi ste r w i th S ou th Caro l i na autho ri ti es w hen he e stabl i sh ed a r esi dence ther e, se e § 16 913( a)
. Venue was properi n In diana, as i t would have bee n i n So uth Ca r o l i na i fthe g o v e r nme nth a d o pt e d t o p r ose cute ther e. S ee U nite d S ta tes v. How el l , 55 2 F
. 3d 709, 71 8 ( 8th C ir. 2009). B L e a c h s p e n d s c o n s i d e r ab l e e ff o r ta r g u i n gth a tS O R NA vi o l at es the Ex Po stF ac to Cl au se o fth e I ndi an a Con

s t i t u t i o n . I n s u p p o r t, h e r e l i e s o n th e In d i a n a S u p r e me Cou r t’ s r ec en t o pi ni o n inv al i dat i ngpo r ti o ns o fthe I ndi an a se x o ffen derr eg i st r at i o n s ta tu te o n s tate c o nsti tuti onalgr ou n ds. S ee Wallacev. State, 90 5 N
. E.2 d 371 ( I nd

. 20 09) . B u t th e quest i on be f or e us i s no t whether I nd i ana has adopted a com pli ant re gi str ati on sys tem ( an i ssu e rel ating o nl y t o i ts enti tl em ent t o cer tain federa l fund s, se e C a rr, 13 0 S
. Ct. at22 32) , n or is i t whether S O R NA

— a federa l st atute

— “co m pli es” w i th the l aw o f any par ti cu larst ate
. The S up re m acy Clause es tabl i shes tha ts t a t e c o ns t i t ut i o na l p r o v i s i o ns c a nn o to v e r r i de fede ral statu tes. See U
. S. C O NST . ar t. V I, cl

. 2; se e a l so U n i t ed S ta tes v. B a er, 2 35 F
. 3d 56 1, 5 62 ( 10 thCi r . 2 000). A nd e ven ifInd i ana’ s s yst em were fl aw ed ( a poi nt o n w hi ch w e e xpress n o opi ni on) , Leach was al so re quir ed to r eg i st eri n S o uth Ca r o l i na and di d no t. W e ar e th us l eft o nl y with Leach’ s a rgum ent that S OR N A vi olates th e Ex Po st F ac to Cl au se o f th e Uni te d S ta te s Con st i tu ti o n. W e r evi ew a chal l enge to the consti tuti onalval i dity o f6 N o. 10

- 1786 a federa l st atute deno vo . U nite d Sta te s v . Sidwell, 44 0 F.3d 865 , 870 (7th C ir. 2006). T he Ex Post Facto C lause, U

. S. C O NST . ar t. I, § 9, cl

. 3, p rohi b its retroactive pu nish m en t. T he Sup rem e C ou rt ha s he l d tha t “the c o ns ti tu ti o na l pr o hibi ti o n o n ex p o st f ac t o l a ws a pp l i e s o nl y to p e na l s t a t ut e s wh i c h di s a dvantag e the o ffender affecte d by them

. ” Coll i ns v. Yo un gb l ood, 49 7 U.S
. 37, 41 ( 1990 ) ; se e a l so O ’ Grady v . Village of Lib er tyvil le, 3 04 F. 3d 7 19, 7 23 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 2)
. The Court has e m phasi zed the re str i cti on o fthe Clause to penal sta tutes , s ee Kans as v. He ndr i cks , 52 1 U.S
. 34 6, 37 0 ( 1997 ) , and thus a ci vi l r egu lat or y r egi m e “ w i l l i m pli cate ex po stf ac t o concerns o nl y i fi t ca n be f ai rl y c hara cter i zed as pu ni shm ent. ” S ee B ae v. Shalala , 44 F. 3d 489, 49 2 ( 7th Cir
. 19 95)
. Logi cal l y there ar e o nl y tw o concei vabl e ways i n whi cho ne mighta r g ue thata n ex p os tf ac t o vi ol ati on ar i ses under S OR N A : e itherLeach co uld co ntend that the c ri m i nal penal ti es und er 18 U
. S. C. § 2 250( a) ar e r etr oacti ve, o r he co uld as ser t that the r egi str ati on r equi re m ents und er42 U
. S. C. § 1 6913 co nsti tute pu ni shm en t. L e a c h h a s n o tc l e a r l y di st i n g u i s h e d b e t we e n th e t wo ap p r o a c h es , an d so w e w ill con sid er ea c h p os sib ility in tu r n. S ec ti o n 2 25 0( a) i m po se s up t o t eny ears ’ i m pr i so nm en t f or f ai l ure to com plywith S OR N A ’ s r egi str ati on r equi re m en ts . Th is is c er ta in ly a p en al s ta tu te , an d so th e o n ly questi on i s whether i t i s r etr ospect i ve . A sex o ffender vi ol ate s the s ta tute w hen, atany ti m e a fterS OR N A was en ac te d , he tra v e l s in in te rs ta te co m m er c e a n d th en fails to re gi ste r. S ee C a rr, 13 0 S
. Ct. at 2232

- 33. Because the l awN o. 10

- 1786 7 tar get s o nl y the co nd uc t u nd er tak en byco nvi cted s ex o ffen der s afte r i ts en ac tment, i t do es no t vi olate the Ex P ostFacto Cl ause. S ee We ave rv. Gr aham , 450 U
. S. 24 , 29 ( 1981 ) ( obs er vi ng that a l aw “m ust a pp l y t o eve nts bef or e i ts enactm ent” to be ex postfact o ). I n f act, as w e c am e t o und er sta nd ato ra l ar gum ent, Leach i s no t a ctual l y a rguingtha t § 22 50( a) r etr ospecti ve l y t ar g ets c o nduc t th atwas l awfulb efo r e th e st at ute was enac ted. The cr ux ofhi s point se em s instea d to be that obl i gi ng hi m to co m plyw ith the r egi str ati on re q u ire m en ts im p os ed b y 42 U .S.C
. § 16 91 3 e f fec tiv ely i n c r e a s e s th e p u n i s h me n tf o r h i s 1 9 9 0 c o n v i c t i o n . We re cogni ze that SORN A i m poses si gni fi cant burde n s on sex o ffenders w ho, l i ke Leach, m ay have com m i tte d th ei r c r i m es a nd c o m pl et ed th ei r pr i so n te r m s l o ng bef or e th e statute went i nto effect. Leach m ust r egi ste r i n e ve ryj uri sdic ti on wh er e he l i ves, works , o r goe s t o sc h oo l; h e m u st n ot ify go v e r n m en t o fficia ls w ith in thre e business days o fchanging hi s r esi dence; he m ust fur nish the g o ve r nm en t wi thfi ng er pr i nt s, a pho to g r aph, a ph y s i c a l de s c r i pt i o n o fh i mse l f, v e hi c l e i de nt i fi c a t i on i nf o r m at i o n, a nd a ny o th ermateria l s r equi r ed bythe A tto rneyGeneral. 42 U
. S. C. § 1 6913

- 14. A l l o fthes e r equir em ents ar e t ri gge re d w ith ou t r espectto the date o f the c onvi cti ons: federa l gui del i nes s ay that an offe nd er w ho w as convi cted bef or e SORN A w as enacte d m ust com plywith them

. 28 C. F. R. § 72. 3. But t h at d oes not ma k e th e m r e t r o sp e c t i v e : S O R NA me r e l y c r e a t e s n e w, prosp ec ti ve l ega l o bl i gat i ons base d on the perso n’s pri or hi sto ry .8 N o. 10

- 1786 To vi ol ate the Ex Pos t F ac to Clause , m or eov er, a l aw m us t b e bo th r etr ospect i ve andpen al. Bu t w he th er a com prehensi ve re gi str ati on r egi m e t ar get i ng o nl y s ex offenders i s penal, as Leach co ncedes, i s n ot an o pen qu esti o n. In Sm i t h v
. D oe, 5 3 8 U. S
. 8 4 ( 2 0 0 3 ) , the Suprem e Court hel d that a n A l ask a s ex o ffender re gi str ati on a nd not i fi cati on s tatute pos ed no ex postfact o vi ol ati on be cause i t was a c i vi l, r atherthan penal, st atute
. Citing Sm ith , we o bs er ve d i n D ixo n v . U nited Sta tes , a case thatdi d not s quarel y pr ese nt the i ssue, thata defendant coul d not challen ge SORN A ’ s r egi str ati on r equi r ement s o n ex p os tf ac t o gr ounds because the sta tute i s, i n f act, re gul ato ry . 551 F. 3d 578 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) , r ev’ d on othe r gr ounds sub n o m . Ca rr v. U nited Sta tes , 1 30 S. Ct. 2229 ( 2010 )
. Leach has n ot identi fi ed any aspects o f SO R N A ’s r eg ist ra tio n p ro vis ion s t h at d ist in gu ish th is c a s e fr o m Sm ith

. T h is i s un su rp risi ng, since w e too are unabl e t o fi nd any m eani ngful dist i ncti ons. There f or e, w e jo i n ou r sis te r c irc u its in c on c lu d in g t h at SO R N A is not anex p os tf

ac t o l aw . S ee U nited Sta tes v. D iTo m a sso , 62 1 F .3d 17, 25 (1 st C ir. 20 10 ); U ni t e d St at e s v. Guzm an , 59 1 F.3 d 83 , 94 (2 d C ir. 20 10 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sh e nan doah , 595 F.3d 151, 158-59 (3d Cir. 2010); U nite d State s v. G ould , 56 8 F .3d 4 59 , 4 66 (4 th C ir. 20 09 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Young, 58 5 F.3 d 19 9, 20 3-0 6 (5 th C ir. 20 09 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. M ay, 53 5 F .3d 91 2, 91 9-2 0 (8 th C ir. 20 08 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ge orge, 62 5 F .3d 11 24 , 1 1 3 1 (9 th C ir. 20 10 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. H inc k ley, 5 50 F
. 3d 92 6, 9 36 ( 10 thCi r . 2008); U nited Sta tes v. A m bert, 561 F.3d 120 2, 1207( 11th Cir. 2009). The j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourti s A FFI RMED . 5- 3- 11