IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-50026

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARK MARTINEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC 3:08-CR-1319-ALL

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mark Martinez was convicted in 1991 in a Texas court of aggravated 

sexual assault of a child; he was required by Texas law to register as a sex 

offender for life and verify his registration annually. In 2008, Martinez was 

charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 2250 by knowingly failing to register as a 

sex offender after traveling in interstate commerce, a violation of the Sex 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 13, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 09-50026 Document: 00512498495 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/13/2014
No. 09-50026

Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”). Following a bench 

trial, the district court found Martinez guilty as charged. Martinez appealed.

The Government filed a motion for summary affirmance, asserting that 

the issues raised by Martinez on appeal have been fully resolved by a recent 

Supreme Court decision and by recent decisions by this court. See United 

States v. Kebodeaux, 133 S. Ct. 2496 (2013); United States v. Heth, 596 F.3d 

255 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Whaley, 577 F.3d 254 (5th Cir. 2009). 

Summary affirmance is proper when “the position of one of the parties is 

clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as 

to the outcome of the case.” Groendyke Transport, Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 

1162 (5th Cir. 1969).

Martinez’s first contention on appeal is that Congress lacked authority 

under the commerce clause to enact SORNA. We have already determined 

that it was within Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause to forbid sex 

offenders from using the channels of interstate commerce to evade registration 

requirements. Whaley, 577 F.3d at 258.

Martinez also makes two due process arguments on appeal. First, he 

points out that no Texas statute implements SORNA. He argues, then, that

he had no duty to register, it would be impossible to do so, and he could have 

no liability for failing to do so. We have already rejected a similar argument

by holding that “nothing in SORNA’s statutory scheme indicates that an 

individual’s registration obligations are contingent upon a state’s 

implementation of SORNA’s administrative requirements.” Heth, 596 F.3d at 

259. Heth’s due process challenge was without merit, id., and so is Martinez’s.

Martinez argues a separate due process violation based on his failure to

receive any notice of SORNA or its registration requirements. This court has 

rejected the argument that ignorance of SORNA’s requirements serves as a 

defense to prosecution: “notice of a duty to register under state law is sufficient 

2

 Case: 09-50026 Document: 00512498495 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/13/2014
No. 09-50026

to satisfy the Due Process Clause.” Whaley, 577 F.3d at 262. Martinez was 

aware that he was required to register under Texas law, signed documents to 

that effect, and in fact did register in Texas. Martinez’s due process claims 

have been addressed and rejected by this court. See Heth, 596 F.3d at 259; 

Whaley, 577 F.3d at 262.

Finally, Martinez argues that actual knowledge of SORNA is a 

requirement for conviction under Section 2250 for “knowingly failing to 

register . . . .” To the contrary, “SORNA’s criminal provision is not a specific 

intent law . . . . There is no language requiring specific intent or a willful 

failure to register such that he must know his failure to register violated 

federal law.” Whaley, 577 F.3d at 262 n.6 (quoting United States v. Gould, 568 

F.3d 459, 468 (4th Cir. 2009)). A conviction under Section 2250 does not 

require notice of SORNA but only “notice of a duty to register under state law.” 

Whaley, 577 F.3d at 262. 

Because there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the 

case, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED and the 

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Accordingly, the Government’s 

alternative motion for an extension of time to file a responsive brief on the 

merits is DENIED as moot.

3

 Case: 09-50026 Document: 00512498495 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/13/2014