NOT RECOMMENDED F OR F ULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Na me: 12a1032n.06 No. 12-5033 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS F OR THE S IXTH CIRCUIT UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee ,

v. KEI TH RAY SMI TH, Def endant- Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE E ASTERN DI STRI CT OF KENTUCKY

BEF ORE: DAUGHT REY, COL E, and GI BB ONS, Circuit J udg es.

PER CURI AM. Keith Ray Smit h appea ls the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment char g ing him with failure to reg ister as a sex offe nder. As set forth below, we aff irm. The State of I ndiana convicted Smit h of child-molesting in 1983, 1986, and 1992. Upon his rele ase f rom prison in 1996, Smit h reg istered with the Indiana Sex Offende r Reg istry and kept his reg istration curr ent until the spring of 2010, when he moved to Michig an. In late 2010, Smit h reloc ated to K entucky and established residenc y . Smit h did not reg ister as a sex off ender in e ither Michig an or Kentucky , nor did he update his reg istration in Indiana. On Marc h 11, 2011, local law enfor ceme nt stopped Smit h’s vehicle afte r a license plate chec k reve aled an outstanding war rant for failure to r eg ister as a se x offe nder in Indiana. At the time of the stop, Smith a dmitted that he had been living and working in Boone County , Kentucky , and that he knew of his obligation to reg ister in Kentucky

.No. 12-5033

United States v. Smith A fede ral g rand jury subsequently char g ed Smit h as “an individual require d to reg ister under the Sex Offe nder Reg istration and Notification Act [(SOR NA) who] trave led in interstate commerc e and

. . . knowing ly fail[ed] to reg ister and update a reg istration as require d,” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a)

. Smit h moved to dismiss the indictment, asser tin g i n p ar t that he was never proper ly notified of any duty to reg ister as a sex offe nder, in violation of the Due Process Clause. In denying the m otion t o d i s m i s s, the di strict court concluded that Smit h had actual not ice of the reg istration require ment. Smit h enter ed into a conditional plea ag ree ment prese rvin g h i s ri gh t to appea l the denial of his motion to dis m i s s . The district court sentenc ed Smit h to twenty months of imprisonment followed by lifetime supervised r elea se. I n this timely appea l, Smit h contends that the district court err ed in deny i ng his motion to dismiss the indictment beca use he did not have notice of the require ment to reg ister as a sex offe nder under SORNA, in violation of the Due Process Clause. “In revie wing a motion to dismiss an indictment, we revie w the district court’s leg al conclusions de novo and its finding s of fac ts for clea r

err or or an abuse of discretion.” United Stat es v. Trent , 654 F.3d 574, 578 (6th Cir. 2011), cert. denied , 132 S. Ct . 1542 (2012). Smit h argues that he did not have notice of SORNA’ s reg istration require ment beca use he

was never require d to r eg ister as a sex offe nder under Indiana law, even though he did so any way . See W allace v. State , 905 N.E.2d 371, 384 (Ind. 2009) (holding that application of the Indiana Sex Offe nder Reg istration A ct to a defe ndant who committed his offe nse befor e its e nactment violated the state constitution’s prohibition on ex post fac to laws). Howeve r, the lack of a state reg istration require ment “does not aff ect the independe nt obliga tion of a sex offe nder t o re gi ster under -2-No. 12-5033

United States v. Smith [ S ORNA].” Trent , 654 F.3d at 591. Moreove r, Smit h’s admissions reg arding that indep en d en t obligation defe at his lack of notice argument. In his plea ag ree ment, Smit h admitted that, as a result of his child-molesting c onvictions, he “is re quired to re g ister under the S ex Offende r Reg istration and Notification Act for his lifetime,” that “he knew of his obligation to reg ister in Kentucky ,” and that he “knowing ly failed to reg ister in Kentucky despite an adequate opportunity to do so.” Smit h

ac knowledg ed those admissions reg arding SORNA’s reg istration require ment during the p l ea colloquy

. “He cannot now take the position—contrary to his ple a—that he didn’t know about that require ment.” United States v. Stock , 685 F.3d 621, 626 ( 6th Cir. 2012). Acc ording ly , we aff

irm the district cour t ’s order denying Smit h’s motion to dismiss the indictment.

-3-