### IN THE UNITED STATE S C OURT OF AP P EALS F ORT HE F IF T H CIRCUI T

N o. 09- 30484

UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f – A pp el l ee v. NAM VA N HOA NG, D e fe nda nt–Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f o rt he M i ddl e D i s t r i c to f Lo ui s i ana

B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, JO L L Yan d G A R Z A , C i rcui tJu dg es. E

. G R A D YJO L L Y , C i rcui tJu dg e: T h e g o v e r n m e n t’s p e tit io n fo rp a n e l re h e a r in gis D E N IE D

. In den yi n g t h i s pet i t i on , w e shou l d observe t h at shortl y bef ore our opi n i on i n t hi s c as e i s s ue d, a no t he rpa ne lde c i de d Un i t ed S t ate s v. Joh n son , --- F .3d -- --, 201 1 W L 338 802 ( 5th C ir

. F e b. 4, 201 1)

. B ecau se t h e cases w ere deci ded vi rt u al l y si m u l t an eou sl y, ou r opi n i on fai l ed t o note Joh n son , i n w h i ch the pa n el ad dressed w h et h er t h e Sex O f fen der R egi st rat i on an d N o t ificati on A ct ( “ S O R N A” ) ap pl i ed t o pre- en act m en t sex of fen ders at t h e t i m e of ena ct m en t , or
w h e th e rth e s ta tu te d e le g a te d to t h e A t to r n e yG e n e r a l th e d e c is io n to a p p ly S O R N A t o p r e -e n act m en tof fen ders. Th e pan elhel d that “ S O R N Adel egated
a u th ority to t h e A ttorn ey G en era l t o de term i n e th e a p p l i ca b i l i ty of S O R N Ato U nit e d S ta te s C ou rt o f Ap pe a ls

Fifth C irc uit 

## F I L E D M arch 2 5, 20 11 Lyl e W . Cayce C lerkN o. 09- 30484

The government’ smotion f ora s tayof

ourruling onthi s p etition f orp anelrehe aring 1 i sal s o DE NIE D. 2 p re-en a ctm en t of

fen d ers.” I

d. at *6. A l t h ou gh our opi n i on fai l ed to ci t e Joh n son , o u rre a s o n in ga n d h o ld in gin th is ca s e a r e n o t in c o n s is te n t w ith it. T o be sure, w e reached an al t erna t ive h ol di n g— t h at i s, t h at t o w h atever extent S O R N Am ay be ch aract eri zed as am bi gu ou s, t h e rul e of l en i t y precl u des
us f r o m a ppl yi ng i tt o H o ang
— butt hi s a l t e r n a tiv e ho l di ng yi e l ds no i nc o ns i s t e nc y be t w e e n o uro pi ni o n a nd Jo h n son . Furt her m or e, al t hough Joh n son add i t i on al l y h el d that t h e A t t orney G en eral di d n ot h ave good cause f or fai l i ng t o c o m pl y w i t h t he Adm i ni s t r at i ve Pr o c e dur e s Ac ti n pr o m ul ga t i ng t he Inter i m R u l e t h at decl ared S O R N Aret roact i ve, our pa n e l w as not presented
w ith th a t is s u e . T h e fa c t t h a t w e s a id H o a n g , a p r e -e n a c tm e n t s e xo ffe n d e r , “d id
n ot b ecom e subj ectt o SO R N A ’ s r egi st rat i on requi rem en t s un t i lt h e A t t orney G ener al i ss ued t he I nt er i m R ul e, ” sho ul d not be c ons t r ued ot her w i se . Fi nal l y, al t h ou gh our opi n i on di d n otref er t o t h ree add i t i on a l r ecentl y- deci ded cases fr o m o t h e r c i r c u i t s — o n e c o n s i s t ent w i t h our hol d i n g a n d t wo c o n f l i c t i n g—n o t h i n gi n t h o s e c a s e s a l t e r s t h e r e a s o n i n g a p p l i e d o rt h e o u t c o me
r e a c h e d in th is a p p e a l. DE NI ED

. 1