NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL- TEXT P UBLICA TION File Name: 12 a10 69n. 06
Nos. 1 0-30 36/ 11-3 741 /11 -353 2
UNITED STA

TES COURT OF A PPE A LS FOR THE SIX TH CIRCUIT

UNITE D ST AT ES O F AMERICA,
Plaint if f -Appe llee,

v

. MICHAEL R. HARPER,
Def end ant -Appe llant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APP E AL FROM T HE UNITE D ST AT ES DIST RICT COURT FOR T HE SOUT HERN DIST RICT OF OHIO

Bef ore: DAUGHT REY, COLE, and ROGERS, Circuit Jud ges.

PER CURIAM. Def end ant Michael R. Harper app eals bot h his conviction f or f ailure
to upd ate his registration und er the f ede ral Sex Of f end er Registration and Notif ication Act (SORNA), 18 U.S.C. § 225 0(a), and the 18-m ont h sent ence imp osed by the district court
base d on the jury

verdict f inding him guilty . On app eal, Harper cont end s tha t SORNA is

unco nstitu tiona l on v arious gr oun ds; tha t the evidence prese nte d at trial w as legally
insuf f icient to convict and , mo reover, tha t it create d a f ata l v ariance wit h t h e in dictm ent ; tha t the district court erre d in t h re e evidentiary rulings at trial and in its respo nse to a question f rom the jury during delibe ration s; and tha t h is sent ence w as bot h proce dura lly
and subst ant iv ely unre ason able

. W e not e at the out set tha t the question of SORNA’s
const itution ality on the sam e gr oun ds raised by Harper has bee n f oreclose d by our recen t opin ions in Un it e d Sta tes v. Felts , 674 F.3d 599 (6th Cir. 201 2), and United Sta tes v.Nos. 10-3036/11-3741/11-3532

United States v. Harpe r Colem an , 675 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2 012 ). W e the ref ore prete rmit d is c u s s ion of tha t issue
in th is app eal a nd, f inding no m erit to the rem aining claim s, we af f irm.

FA CTUA L A ND PROCEDURA L BA CKGROUND

Harper’s obligation to com ply w ith SORNA aros e f rom his 199 0 conviction in
Minneso ta state court f or atte mp ted sexu a l a b u s e of a min or. Claiming tha t he w as too
intoxicated to recall his assau lt on a 15-year-old gi rl , Harper ent ered an Alford plea and

w as sent ence d to f iv e y ears’ prob ation

. How ever, he absco nde d and w as not locate d and
rearreste d unt il 199 9. Convicted of v iolating his paro le, Harper w as sent ence d to 13

mo nth s in prison. I n No v em ber 199 9, tw o days bef ore his release to a half w ay hou se, Harper me t w ith a correction s o f f ic ia l w ho help ed him f ill out his initial sex- of f end er registration f orm, und er a Minneso ta law ena cted in 199 3 tha t app lied to all such of f end ers 1
the n in custo dy or on paro le. She advised him of his obligation s as a re gi s tered sex of f end er – he w ould be required to ma intain registration f or a period of ten y ears f rom the
dat e of this initial registration and w as obligated to upd ate his registration f iv e days prior
to ch anging his reside ntial a ddre ss in Minn esot a o r ano the r state

. Harper sig ned “ und er

T h e r e c o r d w i t h r e g a r d t o H a r p e r ’ s i n i t i a l r e g i s t r a t i o n w a s e s t a b l i s h e d t h r o u g h t h e t e s t i m o n y o f 1 L a r a i n e L e k a n d e r , t h e c a s e m a n a g e r f o r t h e M i n n e s o t a D e p a r t m e n t o f C o r r e c t i o n s w h o s c r e e n e d H a r p e r a t i n t a k e a n d h a n d l e d t h e p a p e r w o r k a t t h e t i m e o f h i s r e l e a s e

. O n N o v e m b e r 1 5 , 1 9 9 9 , s h e w e n t o v e r t h e S e x O f f e n d e r N o t i f i c a t i o n a n d R e g i s t r a t i o n F o r m t h a t c o n s t i t u t e d H a r p e r ’ s i n i t i a l r e g i s t r a t i o n a n d s e c u r e d h i s s i g n a t u r e o n t h e f o r m

. I t c o n t a i n e d t h e e s s e n t i a l i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e 1 9 9 0 s e x - o f f e n s e c o n v i c t i o n t h a t n e c e s s i t a t e d r e g i s t r a t i o n , t h e a d d r e s s o f t h e h a l f w a y h o u s e i n S t

. P a u l t o w h i c h h e w o u l d t r a n s f e r t w o d a y s l a t e r , a n d a “ r e g i s t r a t i o n a d v i s o r y ” n o t i f y i n g h i m o f h i s o b l i g a t i o n t o u p d a t e t h e i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d o n t h e r e g i s t r a t i o n f o r m “ a t l e a s t f i v e d a y s p r i o r t o c h a n g i n g t h a t a d d r e s s , i n c l u d i n g m o v i n g t o a n o t h e r s t a t e

. ” W h e n H a r p e r l e f t t h e h a l f w a y h o u s e i n A p r i l 2 0 0 0 w i t h o u t u p d a t i n g h i s a d d r e s s , t h i s f i r s t f a i l u r e t o c o m p l y c o n s t i t u t e d a “ g r o s s m i s d e m e a n o r ” u n d e r M i n n e s o t a S t a t u t e § 2 4 3

. 1 6 0

. W h e n h e l e f t t h e s t a t e s o m e t i m e l a t e r , w i t h o u t g i v i n g f i v e d a y s ’ p r i o r n o t i c e , t h e s e c o n d n o n - c o m p l i a n c e c o n s t i t u t e d a f e l o n y

. I d

. - 2 -Nos. 10-3036/11-3741/11-3532

United States v. Harpe r dure ss,” add ing a ref eren ce t o a s t a t e statu te tha t proh ibited retroact iv e app lication of
chan ges in prison rules and policies but obviously did not app ly to the registration statu te.

Af ter his release f rom the half w ay hou se, Harper liv ed in several state s, mo v ing f rom
Minneso ta to Florida, Ariz ona , North Carolina and , f inally, t o Ohio, w here he settle d in
Ci n c in n a ti in April 200 9. He did not re-regi ster in any of tho se state s but , base d o n inf orma tion f rom a North Carolina law enf orcem ent of f icial, he w as cont acte d by lette r f rom
the Ham ilton Coun ty (Ohio ) Sh e riff ’s Of f ice in June 200 9 and advised tha t he nee ded to
app ear the re in perso n w ithin three d a ys a n d register or f ace certain specif ied

conse quence s. Harper did n ot app ear as directe d, but he did call the She riff ’s Of f ice to explain tha t he w as not required to registe r. W hen told by an of f icial the re tha t
docu me nta tion f rom Minneso ta indicat ed to the cont rary , he respo nde d by saying tha t he

w ould “see her in court. ” As a result, an of f icer w as sent to Harper’s residen ce to v erif y the

a d d re s s a nd had Harper sign a f orm ackno w ledging his add ress. T hat f orm w as n o t a registration docu me nt, but it d id a d vise Harper tha t he mu st app ear in perso n at the
She riff ’s Of

f ice in o rder to register prop erly

.

W hen Harper did not app ear as directe d, his case w as subm itted to the gr and jury ,

w hich returne d an indictm ent on July 2 2 , 2 0 09, charging tha t Harper w as “an individual required to register und er the Sex Of f end er Registr a tion and Notif ication Act, [w ho had ]
traveled in intersta te and f oreign com me rce and did knowingl y f ail to upd ate a registration

as required by the

. . . Act.” Af ter a two -d ay jury trial, Harper w as f oun d guilty and w as

- 3 -Nos. 10-3036/11-3741/11-3532

United States v. Harpe r subse quently sent ence d to 18 mo nth s in prison, a term at the low end of the app lica ble
sent encin g range. He now app eals b oth his co nviction an d se nte nce.

DISCUSSIO N

Sufficienc y

of the Ev idence

T itle 18 U.S.C. § 225 0(a) provides tha t a sex of f end er w ho is required to register
und er SORNA and w ho, having traveled in intersta te com me rce, “knowi ngly f ails to register

or upd ate a registration” is subje ct to a f ine or imp risonm ent

. At trial, Harpe r did not
cont est his statu s as a convicted sex of f en d e r or den y tha t he had traveled in intersta te

com me rce. How ever, at the end of the gov ernm ent ’s proo f , Har p e r m a d e a mo tion f or judgme nt of acquittal und er Fede ral Rule of Criminal Proced ure 29, arguing tha t the
gov ernm ent had fa iled to prove tha t he had know ingly failed to register. The motion w as
den ied, and the def ense rested w ithou t prese nting evidence. Harper now cont end s, in
add ition to the argume nt in h is Ru le 29 mo tion conce rning knowledge, tha t the re w as insuf f icient proof

that he had a dut y to register or tha t he trav eled i n interstat e comm erce af ter th at d uty arose.

W e review de novo the de nial o f a m otion f or acq uitta l, vi ewi ng the evidence in “a lig ht mo st f avorable to the prose cution , giv ing the prose cution the ben ef it of all reaso nab le
inf eren ces f rom the testim ony.” Unite d Sta tes v. McAuliffe , 490 F.3d 526 , 537 (6th Cir.
2 0 0 7 ). In doin g so , w e w ill “reverse a judgme nt f or insuf f iciency o f evidence only if [th e ]

- 4 -Nos. 10-3036/11-3741/11-3532

United States v. Harpe r judgme nt is not supp orted by subst a n t ial and com pet ent evidence upo n the record as a

w hole .” United Sta tes v. Sto ne , 748 F.2d 361 , 363 (6th Cir.1984 ). T he f ailure to raise an
issue in a Rule 29 mo tion const itute s a w a ive r, and our rev iew is the n “limited to
det ermin ing w het her the re w as a ma nif est misca rriag e of justice,” w hich exists “only if the
record is d evoid of

evidence po inting to guilt.” United States v. Pri ce , 134 F. 3d 340 , 35 0 (6th Cir. 199 8) (citation s an d int erna l quotat ions o mitt ed).

T he record in this ca se is clea rly no t de v oid of

ev iden ce that Harper h ad a d uty to register initially und er Minneso ta’s sex- of f end e r re gi stration statu te. In f act, the record
esta blishes tha t Harper did register in Novembe r 199 9 and w as inf orme d at tha t time tha t,
pursu ant to Minneso ta state law , he w ould be und er a dut y for a period of

10 y ears to reregister each time he chan ged his add ress. Sub sequen tly , in 200 6 , Congress ena cted
SORNA f or the p u rp o s e o f “crea t[ing] a nat iona l sy stem f or the registration of sex of f end ers.” United Sta tes v. Utesch , 596 F.3d 30 2, 306 (6th Cir. 2 010 ) (citing 4 2 U.S.C. § 1690 1). T he Act include d a de legation by Congress that allow ed the Attorney Gen eral
of the United State s to det ermin e retroactivity

. See 42 U .S.C. § 169 13(d ). On August 1,
200 8, the Atto rney G ene ral proclaim ed the Act retroact iv e to “all sex o f f end ers includin g of f end ers convicted

. . . prior to the ena ctm ent of [SORNA]. ” 28 C. F

. R. § 72. 3. Harper
the reby beca me obligated to upd a t e his registration und er the f ede ral statu te as of tha t
dat e. Beca use the 10-year period imp osed by state law had not elap sed w hen Harper w as
cont acte d by the Ha m ilto n Coun ty She riff ’s Of f ice in June 200 9, he w as und er a dut y to

com ply w ith S ORNA.
- 5 -Nos. 10-3036/11-3741/11-3532

United States v. Harpe r Hence , the gov ernm ent proved tha t Harper, having initially registered in Novembe r 199 9, w as un d e r a d u t y to upd ate his registration the reafter and tha t he traveled in
intersta te com me rce w hile u nde r a dut y to upd ate his registration. His a rg um ent s to the
cont rary w ere and are simp ly unp ersua siv e. He claime d, f or examp le, tha t the Minneso ta

s t a t e ju d ge told him tha t he w ould be “don e” once he serv ed his 13-m ont h sent ence f or
paro le violation. Howev er, th at co mm ent ap pare ntly ref erred t o th e f act tha t Harpe r w as “don e” w ith post -imprison me nt supe rv sion and w ould not be subje ct to paro le again, once
the new sent ence w as serv ed. T he subje ct of registration as a sex of f end er w as not

me ntion ed, but tha t om ission and the judge’s f ailure to check a box on the judgme nt orde r calling f or sex- of

f e n d er registration w ere legally irrelev ant , giv en the Minneso ta statu te’s provisi on tha t “[i]f a p e rs o n re qu ir e d to register

. . . w as not not if ied by the court of the registration requireme nt at the time of sent encin g or dispo sition, the assigned correction s agent shall notif

y the person of

the r equireme nts” of the statu tory provisi ons. Minn. Stat. § 243 .16 6, subd

. 2. T hat is, of course , exactly w hat occurred in Harper’s case. As a result,
his cont ent ion tha t he w as n o t o bligated to register prior to the “notice ” tha t he received
f rom Ham ilton Coun ty of f icials is simp ly not supp orted by the record. Moreover, his claim
tha t he v olun tarily “regi stered ” in Ham ilton Coun ty af ter receivi ng not ice is una v ailing – he
f inally upda ted his registration on ly as a con dition of

pre-trial relea se.
Finally , w e not e tha t app ellant ’s reliance on S t a t e v. W illiam s , 952 N.E.2 d 110 8 (Ohio 201 1), is misp laced

. In W illiam s , the Ohio Sup reme Court held tha t the retroact iv e
app lication of a 200 7 am end me nt to the state sex -of f end er cl assif ication sy stem v iolate d
- 6 -Nos. 10-3036/11-3741/11-3532

United States v. Harpe r the Ohio c o n s t it ution , but W illiam s clearly did not invalidate the Ohio state registration
sy stem as a w hole

. Moreover, W illiam s is irrelev ant in this case, beca use Harper’s dut y
to register und er SORNA w as inde pen den t of state registration obligation s. See Felts , 674
F.3d at 603

.

Vari ance Betw een Indictment a nd Ev idence at Tria l

On app eal, Harper also cont end s tha t the evidence at trial create d a f ata l v ariance

w ith the indictm ent – specif ically , t hat the indictm ent charged an obligation to register in
O h io , b u t the evidence proved tha t he had a dut y to register in Minneso ta and Nort h
Carolina. W e w ould norm ally rev iew the question of a v ariance de novo , but in this case,
the def end ant failed to raise the issue in his Rule 29 mo tion, i nste ad raising it for the f irst
time on app eal. W e the ref ore rev iew it f or plain error only, and w e fin d none

. See Price , 134 F.3d a t 3 5 0. T he indictm ent charged tha t he had f ailed to “upd ate a registration as required by the

. . . Act,” and tha t is precisely w hat the evidence prese nte d by the
gov ernm ent esta blished

. T here w as no v ariance and thu s no error in this regard, plain or
oth erw ise.

Ev identiary

Rulings a t Trial

Harper arg ues, f or the f irst time on app eal, tha t the district court err ed in adm itting
evidence of “othe r crimes” und er Fede ral Rule of Evi den ce 404 (b) throu gh testim ony by

a dep uty sherif

f f rom North Carolina tha t w hile Harper had resided in North Carolina, and

- 7 -Nos. 10-3036/11-3741/11-3532

United States v. Harpe r bef ore mo v ing to Cincinna ti, he ha d b e e n not if ied tha t he w as required to upd ate his registration but did n o t c om ply. Harper obje cted to this testim ony at trial but only o n the
basis of hea rsay

. As a result, the re w as no Merriwea the r hea ring und er Rule 404 (b), see
United Sta tes v. Merriwea the r , 78 F.3d 107 0, 107 6-77 (6th Cir. 199 6), and w e rev iew the
district court’s decision f or plai n error, rathe r tha n und er the usua l abu se-of -discretion
stan dard

. See United Sta tes v. Allen , 619 F.3d 518 , 523 (6th Cir. 201 0). W e f ind neith er.
Beca use Harper’s def ense w as tha t he had not know ingly f ailed to register und er SORNA,
evidence tha t he w as repe ate dly advised of his obl ig a t io n u nde r the Act w as highly
relevant. Moreover, the jury w as instructe d tha t it could not convict Har p e r f o r f a il ure to register bef ore moving to Ohio and should conside r the evidence in quest ion only f or the
purp ose of det ermin ing tha t he acte d knowingl y in f ailing to upd ate his registration in Ohio,
rathe r tha n by accide nt or mista ke. Unde r the se circumsta nces, the re w as no error. See
id. at 525

.
Harper d id ob ject a t trial to the introd uction of certif ied p ublic reco rds as evidence

o f h is 199 0 sex- of

f ense conviction in Minneso ta, but the docu me nts w ere relevant t o
esta blish the elem ent s of SORNA and w ere adm itted as self -auth ent icating pub lic records
und er Fede ral Rule of Evi d e n c e 902

. T he district court did not com mit an abu se of
discretion in a dm itting the se d ocum ent s.

Harper next cont end s tha t the district court erred in ref using to adm it transcripts f rom
his rev ocat ion hea ring in the Minneso ta state court, purp orted ly to show tha t the re w as no

- 8 -Nos. 10-3036/11-3741/11-3532

United States v. Harpe r dut y to re gi s t e r o rd ered at tha t time and tha t he w as, the ref ore, not guilty of f ailing to register in Ohio. How ever, the mo tion to adm it the transcripts cam e not in conn ection w ith Harper’s trial but at his sent encin g hea rin g, p u rp o rt edly “f or purp oses of app eal” of the
district court’s den ial of the def end ant ’s earlier Rule 29 mo tion. T he district court decline d
to perm it expansion of the trial record in this irreg ular ma nne r and den ied Harper’s mo tion.
In add ition, the evidence, if adm itted , w ould have bee n cum ulative, f or the reaso ns set out
earlier in this opin ion. W e f ind n o a buse of discretio n in the district co urt’s de cision a nd,
the ref ore, no error.

Request by

Jury

Nor did the district court err in its respo nse to the jury ’s request during delibe ration s f or a copy of bot h the Minneso ta statu te tha t Harper not ed on his origi nal registration f orm
and the portio n of SORNA charged in the indictm ent

. T he judge consu lted w ith coun sel
bef ore declinin g to provide copie s of eithe r statu te, indicat ing tha t he w as satisf ied tha t he
had giv en the jury app ropriate instructio ns on the app licable law and tha t the requeste d

ma terial might prove conf using. Inste ad, the district court ref erred the jury to the relevant portio ns of the instructio ns, the reby prop erly “respon [ding] to the jury ’s specif ic conce rn[s]

w hile p rude ntly ref ocusin g the ju ry on the instructio ns and evidence as a w hole .” United
Sta tes v. Davis , 49 0 F.3 d 5 41, 54 8 (6t h Cir. 20 07).

- 9 -Nos. 10-3036/11-3741/11-3532

United States v. Harpe r Sentenc ing

Harper f irst claims tha t his 18-m ont h sent ence w as proce dura lly def icient beca use
the distri ct court fa iled to address his non -f riv olou s argume nts ade quately and , base d on
tho se argume nts, shou ld have gr ant ed h is re que st to be sent ence d to time serv ed, 91 days. A rev iew of the sent encin g hea ring indicat es, howev er, tha t the court did consid er, directly or indirectly, each of the three poin ts tha t the def end ant now raises: (1) tha t he

w as chara cteriz ed as “low risk” in a Minneso ta risk assessm ent ; ( 2) that he had not bee n
arrested f or any serious misco ndu ct since the n; and (3) tha t he had com plied w ith the sexof f end er r egistration requiremen t once he w as o rdered by the district court to do so. But
t h e ri s k a ssessm ent w as 10 y ears old at the time of the sent encin g in this case, ha vin g
bee n don e at the time Harper w as release d f rom prison in Minneso ta. And , as the district judge not ed, beca use Harper had a cont inuing dut y to upd ate his sex- of f end er registration
each time h e chan ged add resses but had mo v ed in and out of f iv e or six state s w ithou t

com plyi ng, he had repe ate dly v iolate d the Minn e s o t a statu te. It w as clear at the

s e n t e n cing tha t no ma tter how ma ny time s the registration requireme nts had b e e n explained to him , Harper rema ined persona lly conv inced that he had no obligation und er
the Minneso ta state registration l aw , apparen tly beca use no judge had actu ally orde red him
to register unt il the district court did so as a cond ition of his pre-trial release

. Unde r all the
circumsta nces t h a t we re brou ght out at the sent encin g hea ring, the 18-m ont h sent ence

w as p roced urallyreaso nab le.

- 10

-Nos. 10-3036/11-3741/11-3532

United States v. Harpe r T he def end ant also claims tha t the sent ence w as subst ant iv ely unre ason able in tha t
it w as gr eat er tha n nece ssary , giv en tha t the und erly in g s e x of f ense occurred in 198 9,

som e 20 y ears earlier. How ever, the of f ense f or w hich Harper w as bein g sent ence d w as
not the und erly ing convict io n but his f ailure to com ply w ith SORNA, as charged in the
f ede ral indictm ent

. Moreover, the district court caref ully w ent over the f acto rs set out in 18
U.S.C. § 355 3(a), add ressing the nat ure, c ir c u m stan ces, and seriousn ess of Harper’s
of f ense , his criminal history, the need f or deterren ce, and the nee d to prote ct the public.
W e conclu de tha t Harper has f ailed to overcome the presu mp tion of reaso nab lene ss tha t
atta ches to a sent ence f alling w ithin the guidelines, not ing once again tha t his sent ence f ell
at t h e lo we s t e n d of the app licable guideline range. See United Sta tes v. W illiam s , 436
F.3d 70 6 (6t h Cir. 20 06).

CONCLUSION

For the reaso ns set out a bove, we AFFIRM the district co urt’s jud gmen t in a ppe al
No. 10-3 036

. In add ition, w e DISMISS as mo ot conso lidate d app eals No. 11-3 532 and No.
11-3 741 , w hich challen ged the district court’s rulings on the def end ant ’s mo t io n s f or
release pe ndin g appe al.

- 11

-