NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

________________ No . 17

- 2177

________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. KIRK DANIEL WHITE ,

Appellant

________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania ( M.D. Pa. No. 1

- 16

- c r - 0 0 2 79

- 001 ) District Judge: Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo

________________ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

January 16, 2018 Before : AMBRO, RESTREPO, and FUENTES , Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : January 24, 2018 )

________________ OPINION *

________________

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.2

AMBRO, Circuit Judge Kirk Daniel White was convicted in 2013 of i ndecent a ssault in Yo rk County,
Penn sylvania . As part of his conviction, he was required to register as a s ex offender and to give notice of any address changes under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”) and Pennsylvania state law . 18 U.S.C. § 2250 ; 18 Pa.
Cons. Sta t. § 4915.1

. He registered in October of 2015 at a Lyoming County address

. W hen Pennsylvania State Police conducted a compliance check in March of 2016, however, t hey discovered White was not living there . A state police officer spoke to White by phone that month , inquiri ng into his failure to correct his registr ation . White explained he had struggl ed to find approved housing and plann ed to move back to York County. But in fact he w as liv ing with his girlfriend , who was then pregnant, in Maryland , wher e he hoped to stay until the birth of their second child

. H e had intentionally declined t o correct his registration because he believed he would be immediately arrested for violating his York County parole

. White ultimately was arrested on a warrant issue d by Lyoming County for failure
to register . When he was released on bail, he voluntarily corrected his registration

. He was then arrested again on a York County warrant for violating his parole. Several weeks later, a federal warrant was issued for Whit e’s arrest for failure to register under SORNA . White entered a guilty plea without a plea agreement. At sentencing, he asked the District Court to apply the three

- level reduction under the Sentencing Guidelines for defendants who “voluntarily . . . corr ected the failure to register.” U.S.S.G. § 2A3.5(b)(2)(A)

. According to the commentary to3

§ 2A3.5(b)(2)(A) , to qualify for the reduction, “ the defendant’s voluntary attempt

. . . to correct the failure to register must have occurred prior to the time the defendant knew or reasonably should have known a jurisdiction had detected the failure to register.” Id. cmt. n.2(A). White admitted to knowing he might be arreste d by only state

— not federal

— law enforcement before he corrected his registration. He argue d that because he voluntarily corrected after the state police had completed their investigation s and before he had any reason to know a federal investigation was underwa y , he qualified for the sentencing reduction . The District Court rejected White’s arg ument and sentenced him to 24 month s ’ imprisonment under U.S.S.G. § 2A3.5(a)(3). He now appeals.
We exercise plenary review of the District Court’s interpretation of the Guidelines
and review its factual determinations for clear error , United States v. Gr ier , 475 F.3d 556, 570 (3d Cir. 2007) , and w e affirm. Despite White’s argument s , for which he cites no relevant authority, the commentary to § 2A3.5(b)(2)(A) does not distinguish between state and federal jurisdictions

. I t precludes the sentencing reduct ion if he kn e w “ a jurisdiction had detected [his] failure to register.” U.S.S.G. § 2A3.5(b)(2)(A) cmt. n.2(A) (emphasis added)

. White acknowledged he had reason to know “ a jurisdiction,” namely either York County where he was on p arole or Lyoming County where he was no longer living, “had d etected [his] failure to register

. ” Indeed, he did not correct his registration until after he was arrested for failing to do so

. Thus the District Court’s sentence is affirmed.