IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-30484

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee

v.

NAM VAN HOANG,

Defendant – Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

Before JONES, Chief Judge, JOLLY and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge:

Appellant Nam Van Hoang (“Hoang”) appeals from his conviction for

failure to register pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

(“SORNA”). Hoang was convicted of a sex offense and registered as a sex

offender under state law prior to the enactment of SORNA, which requires a sex

offender to register in each jurisdiction where he resides and to keep his

registration current. Section 2250 of Title 18 prohibits sex offenders who are

required to register under SORNA from traveling in interstate commerce and

knowingly failing to register. Hoang’s interstate travel took place after SORNA’s

enactment but before the Attorney General issued an Interim Rule declaring

SORNA applicable to all sex offenders whose underlying sex-offense convictions

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 23, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 09-30484 Document: 00511391857 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/23/2011
No. 09-30484

predate SORNA’s enactment. There is a split of authority among the courts of

appeals as to whether SORNA’s registration requirements became effective to

already-registered, pre-SORNA sex offenders (1) on the date SORNA was

enacted, or (2) when the Attorney General issued the Interim Rule declaring

SORNA retroactive. We hold that Hoang did not become subject to SORNA’s

registration requirements until the Attorney General issued the Interim Rule.

We reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for entry of an order

of dismissal.

I.

The facts of this case are undisputed. On May 13, 2005, Hoang was

convicted in Orleans Parish Criminal Court of two counts of attempted

aggravated crimes against nature, in violation of Louisiana Revised Statute

14:89:1. This conviction renders him a sex offender as defined by SORNA.

Hoang was sentenced to 30 months in prison and a term of supervised release.

He was further ordered to register as a sex offender, which he did prior to

release from prison. Before his release, Hoang was informed of his obligation

(under his state-law conviction and sentence) to register with his new parish or

county of residence in the event that he moved; he was further informed that he

was required to update his registration with Orleans Parish annually and to

notify his previous parish or county of residence if he ever moved.

At some point after May 18, 2005, Hoang moved to Lubbock, Texas. On

June 22, 2006, Lubbock police learned that Hoang was a sex offender who had

not registered in the City of Lubbock or State of Texas. Hoang was then

compelled to register as a sex offender with the State of Texas, and was once

again informed of his obligations to notify his current jurisdiction as well as his

receiving jurisdiction in the event that he changed his residence. SORNA was

enacted on July 27, 2006, setting forth registration requirements for sex

offenders under federal law.

2

Case: 09-30484 Document: 00511391857 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/23/2011
No. 09-30484

Lubbock police were informed on December 1, 2006 that Hoang had moved

from his residence, and that his whereabouts were unknown. At that point he

was placed in absconder status for failing to notify the local sex offender unit

that he had changed addresses. Texas law enforcement later notified a Deputy

United States Marshal that Hoang had obtained a Louisiana driver’s license on

July 11, 2007, and that the license showed a Baton Rouge address. The deputy

marshal discovered that Hoang had not registered with the relevant local or

state authorities in Louisiana, as required by SORNA. On September 25, 2007,

the deputy marshal located Hoang at the Baton Rouge address listed on his

license and brought him to be registered with the Louisiana State Police Sex

Offender Registration Unit. Hoang admitted at that time that he had been

living in Baton Rouge for nine to twelve months and that he had not registered

as a sex offender.

Hoang was indicted for failure to register as a sex offender in the State of

Louisiana from on or about July 11, 2007 until on or about September 24, 2007,

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). Hoang filed a motion to dismiss the

indictment and challenged the constitutionality of SORNA. His motion was

denied. Pursuant to a conditional plea agreement reserving his right to appeal

the district court’s ruling on his motion to dismiss, Hoang pleaded guilty to the

charge and was convicted. This appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 timely followed.

II.

Under SORNA, a person convicted of a sex offense is required to register

as a sex offender and to keep the registration current in each jurisdiction where

the offender resides. 42 U.S.C. § 16913. It is a criminal offense, punishable by

up to ten years of imprisonment, for anyone who is required to register and

travels in interstate commerce to knowingly fail to register or update a

registration. 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). Sex offenders must initially register before

completing their term of imprisonment for the underlying sex offense or, if not

3

Case: 09-30484 Document: 00511391857 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/23/2011
No. 09-30484

incarcerated, within three business days after sentencing. 42 U.S.C. § 16913(b).

Furthermore, 42 U.S.C. § 16913(d), entitled “Initial registration of sex offenders

unable to comply with subsection (b) of this section,” provides that

[t]he Attorney General shall have the authority to specify the

applicability of the requirements of this subchapter to sex offenders

convicted before the enactment of this chapter or its implementation

in a particular jurisdiction, and to prescribe rules for the

registration of any such sex offenders and for other categories of sex

offenders who are unable to comply with subsection (b) of this

section.

42 U.S.C. § 16913(d).

Pursuant to the foregoing authority, the Attorney General issued an

Interim Rule on February 28, 2007 (“Interim Rule”), which provided that the

requirements of SORNA “apply to all sex offenders, including sex offenders

convicted of the offense for which registration is required prior to the enactment

of [SORNA].” 28 C.F.R. § 72.3. The instant dispute concerns the scope of

SORNA and the applicability of this Interim Rule. Specifically, we are asked

whether SORNA applies to a convicted sex offender who fails to register when

(1) the offender’s predicate sex-offense conviction predated the enactment of

SORNA, (2) the offender was registered as a sex offender prior to the enactment

of SORNA, and (3) the offender traveled in interstate commerce after SORNA’s

enactment but prior to the date on which the Attorney General promulgated the

Interim Rule declaring SORNA applicable to sex offenders whose underlying

convictions predate SORNA.

A.

In Carr v. United States, 130 S.Ct. 2229 (2010), the Supreme Court held

that SORNA does not apply to persons with pre-SORNA sex-offense convictions

whose interstate travel occurred prior to the enactment of SORNA. However,

the Court explicitly declined to rule upon whether a sex offender whose

4

Case: 09-30484 Document: 00511391857 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/23/2011
No. 09-30484

interstate travel occurred in the gap between SORNA’s enactment and the

Attorney General’s promulgation of the Interim Rule falls within the ambit of

SORNA’s criminal prohibition on failure to register. See id. at 2234 n.2. The

courts of appeals have divided on this question, and this panel is the first to

consider it since Carr was decided.

The core dispute before us is when the statute became applicable to

Hoang—that is, whether action by the Attorney General was required as a

condition precedent to the enforcement of SORNA against all sex offenders who

traveled between July 27, 2006 and February 28, 2007. Four circuits have held

that sex offenders whose convictions predate SORNA did not become subject to

SORNA’s registration requirements until the Attorney General issued the

Interim Rule in February 2007. See United States v. Hatcher, 560 F.3d 222,

226–29 (4th Cir. 2009); United States v. Cain, 583 F.3d 408, 414–19 (6th Cir.

2009); United States v. Dixon, 551 F.3d 578, 582 (7th Cir. 2008), rev’d on other

grounds, United States v. Carr, 130 S.Ct. 2229 (2010); United States v. Madera,

528 F.3d 852, 857–59 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). Two circuits have held that

sex offenders whose convictions predate SORNA became subject to SORNA’s

registration requirements upon SORNA’s enactment in July 2006. See United

States v. May, 535 F.3d 912, 915–19 (8th Cir. 2008); United States v. Hinckley,

550 F.3d 926, 929–35 (10th Cir. 2008).

B.

We are persuaded that the text of subsection (d) clearly authorizes the

Attorney General to specify whether and how SORNA (and not just the statute’s

initial registration requirements) applies to pre-SORNA sex offenders such as

Hoang. Hoang therefore did not become subject to SORNA until the Attorney

General issued the Interim Rule, after the interstate travel on which Hoang’s

conviction is based.

As we earlier noted, subsection (d) reads thus:

5

Case: 09-30484 Document: 00511391857 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/23/2011
No. 09-30484

The Attorney General shall have the authority to specify the

applicability of the requirements of this subchapter to sex offenders

convicted before the enactment of this chapter or its implementation

in a particular jurisdiction, and to prescribe rules for the

registration of any such sex offenders and for other categories of sex

offenders who are unable to comply with subsection (b) of this

section.

42 U.S.C. § 16913(d). As the Fourth Circuit has observed, the first clause of

subsection (d) provides that the Attorney General “shall,” prospectively, have the

authority to specify whether and how SORNA applies to pre-SORNA sex

offenders. Hatcher, 560 F.3d at 227. Plainly, this authority is altogether distinct

from that granted in the second clause of subsection (d), which authorizes the

Attorney General to prescribe rules for the registration of (1) “any such sex

offenders,” that is, any sex offenders whose convictions predate SORNA’s

enactment; and (2) “other categories of sex offenders” who are unable to comply

with the initial registration requirements of subsection (b). Id. See also

Hinckley, 550 F.3d at 949–50 (McConnell, J., dissenting); Madera, 528 F.3d at

858. The instant dispute implicates only the first of these two clauses. We are

concerned not with particular rules for registration but with whether “this

subchapter” applied to Hoang, a pre-SORNA sex offender, such that he was

subject to SORNA’s registration requirements at the time he traveled in

interstate commerce. “This subchapter” refers to “the entirety of SORNA—not

just the initial registration requirements.” Hinckley, 550 F.3d at 951–52

(McConnell, J., dissenting).

Two other circuits have held that sex offenders who were registered under

state law prior to SORNA’s enactment, and therefore were not subject to the

initial registration requirements of subsections (b) and (d), were required to

register under subsection (a) of 42 U.S.C. § 16913 as of the date on which

SORNA was enacted. May, 535 F.3d at 918–19; Hinckley, 550 F.3d at 935.

6

Case: 09-30484 Document: 00511391857 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/23/2011
No. 09-30484

Subsection (a) contains the general requirement that sex offenders register and

keep their registration current in their jurisdiction of residence. 42 U.S.C.

§ 16913(a). Courts that have applied SORNA to pre-SORNA sex offenders by

way of subsection (a) have reasoned that a sex offender who was already

registered under state law at the time of SORNA’s enactment is not subject to

the initial registration requirements referenced in subsections (b) and (d).

However, this conclusion overlooks the plain language of subsection (d), the first

clause of which does not deal with initial registration at all. That clause—the

only clause conferring the authority implicated in this appeal—deals with the

applicability of all of SORNA, including subsection (a), to sex offenders like

Hoang who were convicted before SORNA’s enactment. The clause gives the

Attorney General the authority to specify the retroactive application of all

subsections of SORNA to pre-SORNA sex offenders. Until the Attorney General

did so by promulgating the Interim Rule in February 2007, SORNA did not

apply to Hoang.

C.

In reaching the foregoing conclusion, we need not look beyond the plain

text of subsection (d). Courts that have found that state-law-registered, preSORNA sex offenders became subject to SORNA on the date of its enactment

have done so by looking to the title of subsection (d) to limit the scope of that

subsection to pre-SORNA sex offenders who were unable to comply with the

initial registration requirements. We find reference to the subtitle unnecessary

1

The title of subsection (d) is “Initial registration of sex offenders unable to comply with 1

subsection (b) of this section.” As an initial matter, we agree with the Fourth Circuit that

there is no necessary conflict between this title and our reading of the statutory text, since the

title refers to the authority to set registration rules, an authority conferred in the second

clause of subsection (d), but not to the authority to specify SORNA’s applicability to

pre-SORNA sex offenders, which is conferred in the first clause. “Nothing in the title is

inconsistent with the literal meaning of the statute, nor is the limited nature of the title

especially significant.” Cain, 583 F.3d at 416. 

7

Case: 09-30484 Document: 00511391857 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/23/2011
No. 09-30484

and inappropriate because, as explained above, we find no ambiguity in

subsection (d). See, e.g., INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 308–09 (2001);

Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 212 (1998) (“[T]he title

of a statute . . . cannot limit the plain meaning of the text. For interpretive

purposes, [it is] of use only when [it] shed[s] light on some ambiguous word or

phrase.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). Courts that have

interpreted subsection (d) to be ambiguous have done so by reading what they

perceive to be an ambiguity in the second clause of the subsection to create an

ambiguity in the first clause. Specifically, these courts have found that the

phrase “other categories of sex offenders who are unable to comply with

subsection (b)” means other categories of sex offenders who are also unable to

comply with the initial registration requirements of subsection (b). This phrase

modifies the phrase “any such sex offenders,” which in turn refers to the phrase

used in the first clause of subsection (d), “sex offenders convicted before the

enactment of this chapter.” The courts have reasoned that the phrasing of the

second clause limits the scope of the first clause to those pre-SORNA sex

offenders unable to comply with the initial registration requirements. See

Hinckley, 550 F.3d at 929–35; May, 535 F.3d at 916–19.

We respectfully disagree. “‘Other categories of sex offenders’ plainly

means types of sex offenders not encompassed within the former category, that

is, those who are not past offenders.” Hinckley, 550 F.3d at 951 (McConnell, J.,

dissenting) (emphasis added). To read the statute otherwise “ignores the key

term ‘other,’ which indicates that the two categories are distinct.” Id. See also

Cain, 583 F.3d at 415. We do not disregard “the cardinal rule that a statute is

to be read as a whole, . . . since the meaning of statutory language, plain or not,

depends on context.” King v. St. Vincent’s Hosp., 502 U.S. 215, 221 (1991). We

simply conclude that nothing in the second clause of subsection (d) or the

broader context of SORNA requires us to strip the first clause of its plain

8

Case: 09-30484 Document: 00511391857 Page: 8 Date Filed: 02/23/2011
No. 09-30484

meaning and replace it with a contradictory one.

III.

In the alternative, we hold that to the extent SORNA may be ambiguous,

the rule of lenity requires that we interpret the statute in Hoang’s favor.

Notwithstanding our conclusion that 42 U.S.C. § 16913(d) is clear, we recognize

that two other circuits disagree and would interpret the statute to include Hoang

within its ambit at the time of enactment. It is familiar learning that “[a]

statute is ambiguous if it is susceptible to more than one reasonable

interpretation or more than one accepted meaning.” In re Condor Ins. Ltd., 601

F.3d 319, 321 (5th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

We recognize, of course, that “[a] statute is not ‘ambiguous’ for purposes of lenity

merely because there is a division of judicial authority over its proper

construction.” Reno v. Koray, 515 U.S. 50, 64–65 (1995) (internal quotation

marks and citation omitted). Nevertheless, insofar as the reasoning of other

circuits may reveal that SORNA is susceptible to “more than one accepted

meaning,” the question of whether SORNA applies to a pre-SORNA sex offender

whose interstate travel took place prior to the promulgation of the Interim Rule

is, at best, ambiguous. “The rule of lenity requires ambiguous criminal laws to

be interpreted in favor of the defendants subjected to them.” United States v.

Santos, 553 U.S. 507, 514 (2008). See also Cain, 583 F.3d at 417 (holding, with

respect to SORNA, that insofar as ambiguity “clouds the meaning of a criminal

statute, the tie must go to the defendant”) (internal quotation marks and

citations omitted). In the light of these observations, we hold that any residual

ambiguity in SORNA discernible from the conflicting decisions of our sister

circuits must be read in Hoang’s favor.

9

Case: 09-30484 Document: 00511391857 Page: 9 Date Filed: 02/23/2011
No. 09-30484

IV.

Defendant Hoang, a sex offender registered under state law prior to the

enactment of SORNA, traveled in interstate commerce and failed to register in

his new jurisdiction after SORNA’s enactment but before the Attorney General

issued an Interim Rule declaring SORNA applicable to all sex offenders whose

underlying sex-offense convictions predate SORNA’s enactment. Hoang’s

conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2250 was based on the premise that he was

required to register under SORNA at the time of his interstate travel. We hold

today that this premise is flawed. The defendant did not become subject to

SORNA’s registration requirements until the Attorney General issued the

Interim Rule in February 2007 that made SORNA retroactive. Subsection (d)

of 42 U.S.C. § 16913 clearly authorizes the Attorney General to specify whether

and how SORNA applies to pre-SORNA sex offenders such as Hoang. Because

the meaning of subsection (d) is plain, we need not look beyond the statutory text

in construing the statute. Moreover, to whatever extent SORNA may be

characterized as ambiguous, the rule of lenity requires that we interpret the

statute in Hoang’s favor. In the light of these considerations, we REVERSE the

judgment of the district court and REMAND for entry of an order of dismissal.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

10

Case: 09-30484 Document: 00511391857 Page: 10 Date Filed: 02/23/2011