P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N os . 09- 1205

___________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. P AUL S HE NANDO AH, A ppel l ant

_____________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D
. C

. N o. 1- 07- cr - 00500- 001) D i s tr i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e C hr i s t opherC

. C onner

___________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober2, 2009 B E F O R E : M c K E E , C H A G A R E S , and N Y G A A R D , C i rcui tJudg es. (F il ed : Fe b rua ry9 , 2 0 1 0 )-2- ___________ Fr eder i ck W

. U l r i ch, E s q. T hom as A

. T hornt on, E s q. O ffi ce of the Feder al Publ i c D efe nder 100 C hes tnutSt r eet , Sui t e 306 H arr i s bur g, PA 17101 C ouns el forA ppel l ant

M art i n C

. C ar l s on, E s q. T heodor e B
. Sm i th, I I I , E s q. O ffi ce of the U ni t ed St at es A t t orney 228 W al nutSt r eet , PO B ox 11754 22 0 F ederal B uil ding and C ou rtho use H arr i s bur g, PA 17108 C ouns el forA ppel l ee

___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________ N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udge. Paul Shenandoah w as i ndi ct ed i n D ece m ber of 2007 for fai l i ng t o r egi s t eras a s ex off enderi n vi ol at i on of the Sex O ffe nderR egi s tr at i on and N ot i fi cat i on A ct( SO R N A ) , 18 U
. S. C

. § 2250( 1) and ( 2) and 42 U
. S. C

. § 14072( i ) ( 1)

. H e w as a lso c h a rg e d w ith tw o c o u n ts o f k n o w in g lya n d w ill f

u lly p ro v id in g f

a lse in f o rm a tio n to law e n f

o rc e m e n t o f

f icia lsU nd e r N e w Y ork st at e l aw , thir d d egree rape i s, 1. e s s e n tia lly, a f

o rm o f s ta tu to ry ra p e w h ic h in v o lv e s , in te r a lia , sex u al i n terco u rse w ith an o ther p erso n less than sev en teen y ea rs o f a g e . See N ew Y o rk P en al L aw § 1 3 0
. 2 5 (M cK inn ey2 0 0 1 ). -3- re g a rd in g h is f

e d e ra l se x o f

f e n d e r re g istra ti o n o f

f e n se s, in v iolati o n o f 1 8 U
. S

. C

. § § 1 0 0 1 an d 1 5 1 2 (b)(3 ). H e p lea d e d n o t g u iltya n d a sk e d th e D istric t C o u rt to di s m i s s the i ndi ctm ent , ar gui ng that SO R N A vi ol at ed the N onD el egat i on D octr i ne, the A dm i ni s tr at i ve Pr ocedur e A ct , the Ex P os tFacto C l aus e, the D ue Pr oces s C l aus e, the C om m er ce C l aus e, the Tent h A m endmentand hi s ri ghtt o tr avel

. T he D is tr ic t C o u rt d e n ie d th e m o tio n . U ni t ed St at es v. Shenandoah , 572 F. Supp. 2d 566 ( M
. D
. Pa. 2008)

. Shenandoah then pl eade d gui l tyt o fai l i ng t o r egi s t er as a sex offende r underSO R N A , but r es erve d hi s r i ghtt o appea l the or derr efus i ng t o di s m i s s the in d ic tm e n t. See F ED .R .C R IM .P . 1 1 (a )(2 ); U ni t ed States v. Zudi ck , 5 2 3 F .2 d 8 4 8 , 8 5 2 (3 d C ir . 1 9 7 5 ). I
. T h e f a c tu a l an d p ro c e d u ra l b a c k g ro u n d o f th is a p p e a l is stra ig h tf o rw a rd a n d u n d isp u ted

. A n a b b re v iate d re c itatio n w ill s uffi ce. Shenandoah, a N ew Y or k r es i d en t , w as convi ct ed of thi r d degr ee r ape in Februaryof 1996. H e exe cut ed a N ew 1 Y or k s t at e s exual offe nderr egi s tr at i on fo rm w hen he w as par ol ed i n Februaryof 2002. T hi s form r equi r es , among ot her th i n g s , th a th e a p pr i s e Ne w Yo r k o f a n yc h a n g e s i n h i s h o me addr es s and pl ace of empl oym ent
. S o m e t i m e i n A ugus tofI n 1 9 9 4 , Con g r e s s e n a c t e d th e J a c o b W e t t e r l i ng 2. C ri m es A gai ns tC hi l dr en and Sexua l l yV i ol entO ffe nder R egi s tr at i on A ct , as amende d , 4 2 U
. S. C

. § 14071, w hi ch condi t i ons fede r al l aw enfor cement fundi ng on s t at es ' adopt i on o f m a n d a to ry s e x o f

f e n d e r r e g is tr a tio n la w s . Sm i th v. D oe , 538 U
. S. 84, 89- 90 ( 2003)

. B y 1996, every s t at e and the D i s tr i ctof C o lu m b i a had enacted som e versi on of the A ct , w hich is comm onl yt erm ed a “ M egan' s L aw . ” I d.
-4- 20 0 7 , Sh enandoa h’ s empl oym entas an i r on w or kerr equi r ed that h e tr a v e l t o , a n d r e l o c a t e i n , Yo r k Co u n ty , P e n n s y l v a n i a . He f a iled , h o w e v e r, eith e r to re g iste r a s a se x o f f e n d e r in Penns y l vani a, or t o m odi fy hi s N ew Y or k r egi s tr at i on t o r efl ect h is c h a n g e o f

re sid e n c e a n d e m p lo ym e n t, l e a d in g to h is in d ictm e n t. II. T he A dam W al s h C hi l d Pr ot ect ion and S afe tyA ctof 20 06 , P ub

. L
. N o. 10 9-248 , 12 0 S t at
. 58 7, w as en act ed t o close the l oophol es i n pr evi ous s ex off enderr egi s tr at i on l egi s l at i on and t o sta n d ardi ze regi strat i on across the st at es. See U ni t ed 2 Stat es v. E ns m i nger , 567 F.3d 587, 588 ( 9th C i r . 2009)

. T he A dam W al s h A cti s di vi ded i nt o s even t i t l es , the fi r s tof w hi ch c o n ta in s S O R N A

. SO R N A cr eat es a nat i onal s ex off enderr egi s try w i th the g o al o f eli m inating inco n sist en cies am o n g stat e l aw s . I d. S O R N A a p p lie s t o a b ro a d ly-d e f in e d c la s s o f

“ s e x o f f e n d e rs ,”-5- w hi ch i ncl udes per s ons c o n v i ct ed of c hi l d pornogr aphyoffe ns es a s w e ll as a lm o st a ll o f

f e n se s in v o lv in g ill e g a l se x u a l co n d u c t. See 42 U
. S. C

. § 16911. SO R N A s et s for th r equi r ement s for o ff en d ers w h o m u st i n it ial lyreg iste r, an d fo r th o se o ff en d ers w ho ar e al r eadyr egi s t er ed, butm us tupdat e thei rr egi s tr at i on: ( a) I n gener al A s ex off

enders hal l r egi s t er , and kee p the r egi s tr at i on curr ent , i n eac h j ur i s di ct i on w her e the offe nderr es i des, w her e the off enderi s an e m p lo ye e , an d w h e re th e o f f e n d e r is a stu d e n t. Fori ni t i al r egi s tr at i on purpos es onl y , a s ex o f f e n d e r sh a ll also re g iste r in th e ju risd ictio n in w hi ch convi ct ed i f s uch j ur i s di ct i on i s di ffe rent fr om the j ur i s di ct i on of r es i dence

. ( b) I ni t i al r egi s tr at i on T h e se x o ff

en d er sh all init ial lyreg ist er- ( 1) befor e com pl et i ng a s ent ence of i m pri sonm ent w i th re sp ectt o the offen se g iv in g rise to th e re g istra tio n re q u ire m e n t; or ( 2) notl at erthan 3 busi nes s day s aft er bei ng s ent ence d for thatoffe ns e, i f the s ex offe nderi s nots enten ced t o a t erm of im p riso n m e n t. ( c) K eepi ng the r egi s tr at i on curr ent-6- A sex of

fend e r sh a l l , no tl at er than 3 b usi ness day s aft ereac h change of name, r es i denc e, e m p lo ym e n t, or stu d e n t sta tu s, a p p e a r in p e rso n in a t lea st 1 ju risd ictio n in v o lv e d p u rsu a n t to s ubs ect i on ( a) of thi s s ect ion a nd i nform that j ur i s di ct i on of all changes i n the i nform at i on r equi r ed fo rthatoffe nderi n the s ex off ender re g istry . T h a t ju risd ictio n sh a ll i m m e d iate ly pr ovi de thati nform at i on t o al l otherj ur i s di ct i ons in w h ich th e o ff

en d er is req u ir ed to reg ist er. (d ) In iti a l re g istra tio n o f se x o f f e n d e rs u n a b le to c o m p ly w i th s ubs ect i on ( b) of thi s s ect i on T h e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l sh a ll h a v e th e a u th o rityto s peci fythe appl i cabi l i tyof th e requi r ement s of this sub ch ap ter t o sex o ff en d ers co n v ict ed b ef

o re J ul y 27, 2006 or i t s i m pl ement at i on i n a part i cul ar j ur i s di ct i on, and t o pr es cr i be rul es for t he r egi s tr at i on of anys uch s ex off ender s and for o th e r c a teg o rie s o f

se x o f f e n d e rs w h o a re u n a b le t o compl yw i th s ubs ect i on ( b) of thi s s ect i on. (e ) S tate p e n a ltyf

o r f a ilu re to c o m p ly E a c h ju risd ictio n , o th e r th a n a F e d e ra lly r ecogni zed I n d ia n tr i be, s hal l pr ovi de a c r i m i nal penal tythati ncl udes a maxi m um t erm of i m pr i s onm entth at is gr eat erthan 1 y earforthe fa i l u r e o f a s e x o f

f e n d e r t o c o mpl y wi t h t he req u ir em en ts of

this sub ch ap ter.-7- 42 U
. S. C

. § 16913. SO R N A pr ovi des forcr i m i nal penal t i es for fai l i ng to com pl yw i th i t s r egi s tr at i on r equi r ement s . Sect i on 22 50 (a) st at es as fol l ow s: W h o ev er- ( 1) i s r equi r ed t o r egi s t er under the Sex O ffe nder R e g istra tio n a n d N o tific a tio n A c t; ( 2) ( A ) is a s ex off

enderas defi ned forthe purpos es of the Sex O ffe nder R egi s tr at i o n and N ot i fi cat i on A ct by r eas on of a convi ct i on under Feder al l aw (i n cl udi ng the U ni form C ode of M i l i t aryJ us t i ce) , the l aw of the D i s tr i ctof C ol um b ia , I ndi an tr i bal l aw , orthe l aw of any t err i t oryorpos s es s i on of the U ni te d St at es ; or ( B ) t r avel s i n i nt erst at e orfor ei gn comm er ce, or ent er s orl eave s , or r es i des i n, I ndi an country ; and ( 3) know i ngl yfai l s t o r egi s t eror u p d at e a r egi s tr at i on as r equi r ed bythe Sex O ffe nder R e g istra tio n a n d N o tific a tio n A c t;

s hal l be fi ned under thi s t i t l e or i m pr i s oned not m or e than 10 y ear s , orboth. 1 8 U
. S

. C

. § 225 0(a)

. T he A t t orney G eneral i s al so dir ecte d to
“ ma i n t a i n a n a t i o n a l d a t a b a s e . . . f o re a c h o f

f e n d e r . ” 4 2 U. S

. C. § 1 6 9 1 9 (a). S O R N A requi res st at es t o im plem ent the st atute orl ose “ 1 0 p e rc e n t o f th e f

u n d s th a t w o u ld o th e rw ise b e a llo c a ted ” to the s t at e under the O m ni bus C r i m e C ontr ol and Safe St r eet s A ct-8- o f 1 9 6 8 fo r a g iven y ea r. 4 2 U
. S

. C

. § 1 6 9 2 5 (a). S tat es a re req u ir ed to “m a in tai n a jurisdicti o n -w ide s ex o ff en d er reg istry c o n f o rm in g to t h e r e q u ir e m e n ts o f [ S O R N A ],” 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 6 9 1 2 (a); “p rov ide a cri m inal p en alty ” fo r a s e x o f fe n d er’s f a ilu re to re g is te r, 4 2 U .S .C

. § 1 6 9 1 3 (e ); a n d “ im m e d ia te ly . . . pr ovi de t he i nform at i on i nt o the r egi s try ” aboutan off enderw ho has regi st ered o r updated a regi strat i on t o o ther ent i t i es, i ncl udi ng the A t t orneyG ener al , l ocal l aw enfor cementagenc i es an d ce rt ain s o cial serv ice a n d v o lun teer o rga n izati o n s tha t w o rk w ith ch il d ren . 4 2 U
. S

. C

. § 1 6 9 2 1 (b). R es pondi ng t o the di r ect i ve cont ai ned i n § 16913( d) , the A t t orneyG ener al i n it ial l yannounce d an i nt er i m rul e that beca m e effec t i ve on February 28, 2007. See 72 F ED . R EG
. 8894 ( Feb. 28, 2007)

. Pur s uantt o thi s rule, t he A t t orneyG ener al decl ar ed thatSO R N A ' s r equi r ement s appl i ed “ to al l s ex offe nder s , i ncl udi ng s ex off ender s convi ct ed of the off ens e for w hi ch r egi s tr at i on i s r equi r ed pr i ort o the ena ctm entof [SO R N A ]

. ” 28 C

. F. R
. § 72. 3 ( 2007)

. T he A t t orneyG ener al then fo ll o w ed u p w ith m o re d etail ed p rop o sed g u idelines that w ere s u b je c t to n o tic e a n d c o m m e n t. See 72 F ED . R EG
. 3 0 2 1 0 ( M ay 30, 2007). T h e A t t orneyG ener al ' s fi nal r egul at i ons on the i nt erpr et at i on and i m pl ement at i on of SO R N A beca m e ef fec t i ve o n Ju ly2 , 2 0 0 8 , o n e w e e k a f ter S h e n a n d o a h f

iled h is M o tio n to D is m is s . See 73 F ED . R EG
. 3 8 0 3 0 (July2 , 2 0 0 8 ). III
. S h e n a n d o a h r a i s e s n u me r o u s c h a l l e n g e s t o S OR NA. He as s ert s thatSO R N A di d notapp lyt o hi m s i nce ne i therN ew Y or k norPenns y l vani a have i m pl ement ed the l aw . Fur ther , he argues that his prosecuti on un der S O R N A viol at es due p rocess b ec au se itw as im p o ssible f o r him to co m p lyw ith the statu te’s d icta tes a n d b e c a u se h e d id n o t re c e iv e a n yn o tice o f h is d u tyto r egi s t er . Shenandoah a l s o as s ert s thatSO R N A vi o lat es theT he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under18 3. U
. S. C

. § 3231. O urj ur i s di ct ion is f o u nd i n 28 U
. S. C

. § 1291.
-9- C om m er ce Cl aus e, the Tent h A m endment and hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o tr avel

. Fi nal l y , he mai nt ai ns thatSO R N A vi ol at es the N o n d e leg a tio n D o c trin e a n d th e A d m in istra tiv e P ro c e d u re A c t. T h e re h a v e b e e n h u n d re d s o f si m ila r c h a llen g e s to th e sta tu te fi l e d i n f

e d e r a l c o u r t s a r o u n d th e n a t i o n , e a c h r ai s i ng cons t itu ti o n al chal l enges t o SO R N A

. T o dat e, the C our t s of A ppeal forthe Four th, Fi fth, Seventh, E i ghth, N i nth, T enth and E l eventh C i r cui t s have a l l r ej ect ed var i ous cons t i tut i onal c h a lle n g e s to S O R N A

. See U ni t ed Sta te s v. G eor

ge , 579 F. 3d 9 6 2 (9th C ir

. 2 0 0 9 ); U

ni t ed Stat es v. W

hal ey , 5 7 7 F .3 d 2 5 4 (5 th C ir

. 2 0 0 9 ); U

n itedS ta tes v . G o u ld , 5 6 8 F
. 3 d 4 5 9 (4 th C ir

. 2 0 0 9 ); U nited States v. A m bert , 5 6 1 F
. 3 d 1 2 0 2 (11 th C ir

. 2 0 0 9 ); Uni t e d S ta t e s v . Dixon , 5 5 1 F .3 d 5 7 8 (7 th C ir. 2 0 0 8 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. Law r ance , 5 4 8 F .3 d 1 3 2 9 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 8 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. M

ay , 5 3 5 F
. 3 d 9 1 2 (8th C ir

. 2 0 0 8 ). T r ad i t i o n a l l y , whe n r e v i e wi n g a mot i o n t o d i s mi s s an ind ictm en t, o u r st an d ard o f re v iew is m ixed , em p loy ing p lena ry o r de novo r evi ew overa di s tr i ctcourt ’ s l egal concl us i ons , and r evi ew i ng anychal l enges t o a di s tr i ct court ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs for cl earerr or . ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. N

olan- C ooper , 155 F. 3d 221, 229 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 8 ); see al

so U nited S tates v. B arbo sa , 271 F. 3d 438, 469 ( 3d C i r . 2001)

. H ow ever , Shenandoah does notchal l enge the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s fac tual det erm i nat i ons . W e are , ther efor e, r evi ew i ng de novo th e D i s tr i c t C o u r t ’ s l e g a l c o n c l u s i o n s . We 3 wi l l a f f i r m. A. Ap p l i c a b i l i tyo f

S OR NA A s a thr es hol d arg um ent , Shendandoah c ont ends that S O R N A d o e s n o t a p p ly to h im b e c a u se n e ith e r P e n n sy lv a n ia-10- norN ew Y or k have i m pl ement ed the A ct
. B eca us e Shenandoa h w as a lr ea dya r egi s t er ed s ex off enderw hen SO R N A w as enac t ed, SO R N A req ui r ed onl ythathe kee p hi s r egi s tr at i on curr enton and af

t erJ ul y27, 2006. T he al l eg ati o n s i n the i n d i c t m e n t , t o w h i c h S h e n a n d o a h p r o v i s i o n a l l y p l e a d e d g u i l ty, cl ear l ypert ai n t o hi s fai l ur e t o keep hi s r egi s tr at i on curr entand, a s s u c h , a re c o v e re d b y 4 2 U .S .C

. § 1 6 9 1 3 (a ) & (c ). S e e , e . g ., U ni t ed Stat es v. May , 5 3 5 F .3 d 9 1 2 , 9 1 8 -19 (8th C ir

. 2 0 0 8 ). U nderthes e s ubs ect i ons of th e s t a tut e, Shenandoah w as r equi r ed t o keep hi s r egi s tr at i on curr enti n eac h j ur i s di ct i on i n w hi ch he r es i ded and, not l at erthan thr ee bus i nes s day s aft ereac h change of r es i dence , t o appea ri n per s on i n atl eas t one j ur i s di ct i on and i nform t hatj ur i sd ict ion of al l change s i n the i nform at i on re q u ir e d in th e s e x o f

f e n d e r r e g is tr y . See 42 U
. S. C

. § 16913( a) & (c). S O R N A d ef

ines a “se x o ff

en d er reg istry ” as “ a re g istry o f s e x o f f e n d e r s , a n d a n o t i f

i c a t i o n p r o g r a m m a i n t a i n e d b y a j ur i s di ct i on. ” 42 U
. S. C

. § 16911( 9)

. A r egi s trythati s oper at ed b ya sta te — lik e th o se o p e ra ted b yN e w Y o rk a n d P e n n sy lv a n ia

— and mai nt ai ned af

t erthe ef fec t i ve dat e of SO R N A s at i s fi es thi s defi ni t i on. I nas m uch as N ew Y or k and Penns y l vani a had se x o f f e n d e r re g is tr ies in p lac e a f ter S O R N A ’s e n a c tm e n t, SO R N A demanded t hatShenandoah upda t e hi s r egi s tr at i on by re g iste rin g in P e n n sy lv a n ia a n d in f o rm in g N e w Y o r k o f

h is ch a n g e o f a d d ress a n d em p loym en t. N o thing in this reco rd demonstr at es thatthi s w as i m pos s i bl e forShenandoah t o do. Fur therm or e, the di r ect i ve found i n 42 U
. S. C

. § 16913( a) a p p lies to se x o f

f e n d e rs — n o t to sta tes . W h e n c o m b in e d w ith SO R N A ’ s enfor cementpr ovi s i on, 18 U
. S

. C

. § 2250( a) , an i ndepende n t an d fede r al l yenfor cea bl e dutyi s pl ace d on s ex offe nder s t o r egi s t er. N ew Y or k and Penns y l vani a maynever i m pl ementSO R N A , choos i ng, forw hat everr eas on, t o for ego a p o rtio n o f

th e ir f e d e ra l f u n d in g . T h is f

a ilu re to im p lem e n t a f e d e ra l law , h o w e v e r, d o e s n o t g iv e se x o f f e n d e rs a re a so n to d isre g a rd th e ir f

e d e ra l o b lig a tio n to u p d a te th e ir sta te-11- re g istra tio n s. W h e n a se x o f f e n d e r tra v e ls in in ter sta te comm er ce and di s obey s the fede r al comm and t o keep hi s orher r egi s tr at i on curr ent , as r equi r ed bySO R N A , he or she i s s ubj ect to p ro se c u tio n . 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 0 (a ); s ee al s o May , 535 F. 3d at 921. S h en an d o ah ’s reli an ce o n the A tt o rne yG en era l’ s SO R N A G ui del i nes , 72 F ED .R EG
. 3 0 2 1 0 (M a y3 0 , 2 0 0 7 ), is m i s pl ace d. I n M ay2007, the A t t orneyG ener al i s s ued pr opos ed Sex O ff

en d er S en tenc ing , M o n it o ri n g , A p p reh en d ing, R e g iste rin g , an d T ra c k in g (“ S M A R T ” ) G u id e lin e s o ste n sib lyto pr ovi de as s i s t ance t o thos e s t at es i m pl ement i ng SO R N A

. 72 F ED .R EG
. at30 21 0. S h enan do ah m ai ntai ns t hat one o f t hese S M A R T g u id e lin e s p la in ly in s tru c ts th a t con v ict ed sex o ff en d ers h a v e a d u tyto re g iste r o n lya f ter a ju r is d ictio n im p lem e n ts S OR NA: Wi th r e s p e c t t o s e x o f

f e n d e r s wi t h p r e - S OR NA [ena ctm ent ] orpr e- SO R N A i m pl ement at i on co n v ict ion s w h o rem ain in the p ri so n er, s upervi s i on, or r egi s t er ed s ex off ender p o p u l a tio n s a t th e tim e o f im p le m e n ta tio n . . . ju risd ictio n s s h o u ld e n d e a v o r to re g iste r th e m in conform i tyw i th SO R N A as qui ckl yas pos s i bl e. 72 Fed. R eg. 30210, 30228 ( M ay30, 2007)

. Shenandoah a r gues thatthi s l anguage s how s thatSO R N A w as noti nt ended t o be e n f o r c e d u n t i l a f

t e rth e s t a t e s h a d i m p l e m e n t e d th e l a w 's r e q u i r e me n t s . We d i s a g r e e . T h e p l a i n l a n g u a g e o f S OR NA r equi r es an off

endert o updat e thei rs t at e r egi s tr at i on, i ndepende ntof anycons truct i on of the st atut e bythe A t t orney G ener al

. Shenandoah’ s obl i gat i on t o r egi s t erw as tr i gger ed by the ena ctm ent o f the s t atut e; i ti s notcont i ngentupon a gr een l i ght fr om the A t t orney G ener al

. M or eover , i n 72 F ED . R EG
. 3 0 2 1 0 , als o iss u e d in M a y 2 0 0 7 , th e A tto rn e y G e n e ra l ex p licitly-12- s t at ed thatthe appl i cabi l i tyof SO R N A i s n o t li m i t ed t o s ex o ff en d ers w h o co m m itted th e p red icate se x crim e a fter a j ur i s di ct i on' s i m pl ement at i on of a c onform i ng r egi s tr at i on p ro g ra m ; ra th e r, S O R N A ’s r e q u ire m e n ts a re a p p li c a b le to a ll s ex off ender s . T he r egul at i on s t at es th at“r egi s t er ed s ex o ff en d er p o p u lat ion s” s h o u ld b e re g ist ere d u n d er S O R N A ’s re q u ire m e n ts. T h is s u g g e sts th a t, ev e n b e f o re f u ll i m pl ement at i on of SO R N A , the obl i gat i on to regi s t erw i th the s t at e appl i es . I ns t ead of i ndi cat i ng that no obl i gat i on t o r egi s t er a p p l i e s u n t i l S O R N A i s i m p l e m e n t e d , th e r e g u l a t i o n c o n v e ys thats ex off

ender s s houl d be r egi s t er ed at al l t i m es . Shenandoah w as a “s ex off

ender ” under SO R N A and as of J ul y 27, 2006, he w a s re q u ire d to — a n d c a p a b le o f — re g iste rin g a n d k e e p in g h is r egi s tr at i on curr enti n the j ur i s di ct i on i n w hi ch he r es i ded. N ew Y or k and Penns y l vani a both had r egi s trati on pr oces s es Shenandoah c ould have e m pl oy ed i n or dert o compl yw i th § 1 6 9 1 3 ( a ) p r i o rt o e i th e rs t a t e ' s i mp l e me n t a t i o n o f S OR NA. N o th in g in S O R N A o r i ts gu id e lin e s ind ica tes th a t a juri sd ict ion ’s f

ail u re to co m p ly w ith S O R N A reli ev es o ff en d ers o f th e o b lig a tio n to re g iste r in th a t ju risd ictio n . W e re jec t, th e re f o r e , S h e n a n d o a h ’s a rg u m e n ts th a t h e w a s u n a b le to re g iste r u n d e r S O R N A o r th a t S O R N A d id n o t ap p lyto h im beca us e nei therN ew Y or k norPenns y l vani a had i m pl ement ed th e la w . B. E x Post Facto C l ause T he E x P os tFacto C l aus e of the C ons t i tut i on forbi ds any l aw t ha t“ c h a n g e s th e p u n i s h me n t , a n d i n f l i c t s a g r e a t er p u n is h m e n t” f

o r p re -e x is tin g c o n d u c t. H am een v . Stat e of D el aw are , 212 F. 3d 226, 235 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( ci t i ng C alderv. B u ll , 3 U. S. ( 3 Dal l

. ) 3 8 6 , 1 L. Ed

. 6 4 8 ( 1 7 9 8 ) )

. Shenandoah ar gues thats ubj ect i ng hi m t o puni s hm ent for fai l i ng t o r egi s t er underSO R N A

— a l aw not y et enac t ed w hen he w as di s char ged f r o m pr i s o n i n New Y o r k — wou l d v i o l a t e the Ex P o st Fa c to-13- C lau se o f

th e C o n s ti tu tio n . W e n e e d n o t d w e ll l o n g o n th is i s s ue. Spe cifi cal l y , SO R N A ’ s cr i m i nal pr ovi s i on i s vi ol at ed wh e n a n o f

f e n d e r wh o wa s ( 1 ) r e q u i r e d t o r e g i s t e ri n s o me j ur i s di ct i on; ( 2) know i ngl yfai l ed t o r egi s t er o r u pdat e a pr i or r e g i s tr a t i o n ; a n d ( 3 ) tr a v e l e d i n i n t e r s t a t e c o mme r c e . 1 8 U. S

. C. § 2250( a)

. SO R N A i s notbei ng appl i ed r etr oact i vel y . I ns t ead, SO R N A ’ s focus i s pr os pect i ve. I tcr eat es a new puni s hm entfor a n e w o f f e n se , this n e w o f

f e n se b e in g tra v e lin g in in te r s ta te comm er ce a nd fail ing t o r egi s t eras a s ex off enderunder S O R N A a f

te r J u ly 2 7 , 2 0 0 6
. S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . Z u n ig a , 579 F .3 d 8 4 5 , 8 4 9 (8 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). S h e n a n d o a h w a s re q u ire d b ylaw to u p d a te h is r egi s tr at i on as a s ex off ender

. H e fa i l ed t o do s o w hen he tr avel ed fr om N ew Y or k t o Penns y l vani a. H i s tr avel t ook pl ace i n A ugus tof 2007, aft erthe ena ctm entof t h e stat u te
. N ei ther SO R N A norShenandoah’ s conducti m pl i cat e the E x P o st Fa c to cl aus e b e c a u se n e ith e r c o n tem p late re tro a c tiv e even t s. C on gress c re a te d a n e w la w . S h e n a n d o a h c o m m itte d a n e w c ri m e . Fur therm or e, the E

x P o st Fa c to C l aus e w oul d pr ot ect Shenandoah onl y i f al l the ac t s r equi r ed forcr i m i nal puni s hm ent occurr ed bef

or e 18 U
. S

. C

. § 2250 t ook eff ect
. I f anyactt ook p la c e la te r, t h e c la u s e d o e s n o t a p p ly. Uni t e d S ta t e s v . Dixon , 551 F. 3d 578, 584- 85 ( 7 C i r . 2008)

. A s j us tnot ed, Shenandoah th w as a n d i s o b l i g e d t o k e e p a c u rr e n tr e g i s tr a t i o n a s a s ex o f f e n d e r u n d e r S O R N A a n d h e h a d a re a so n a b le o p p o rtu n ityto do s o aft erenac t m entof the s t atut e. I ndeed, w hen he l eftpr i s on, Shenandoah w as p rop erl yr egi s t er ed underN ew Y or k l aw , as r equi r ed bySO R N A

. M or e than fi ve y ear s l at er( and more than a y earaft erthe ena ctm entof SO R N A ) , Shenan d oah tr avel ed i nt er s t at e and then fai l ed t o updat e hi s r egi s tr at i on. T he E x P ostS hen and oah al so rai ses a D ue P rocess C l ause 4. ar gum ent , w hi ch w e fi nd bas el es s . H e ar gues thati tvi ol at es due p ro c e ss to c rim in a lize h is f a ilu re to d o so m e th in g th a t is i m pos s i bl e. H e m ai nt ai ns i tw as “i m pos s i bl e” f orhi m t o s at i s fy SO R N A ’ s r equi r ement s beca us e nei ther Penns y l vani a norN ew Y o rk h a d im p lem e n ted th e A c t. H o w e v e r, w e h a v e p re v io u sly d e ter m in e d th a t it w a s n o t im p o ss ib le f o r S h e n a n d o a h to c o m p ly w i th S O R N A ’s requi rem ents
. A s the D i stri ctC ou rtcorr e c tly det erm i ned her e, “A stat e’ s fai l ur e t o updat e i t s r egi s tr at i on sy stem to co n fo rm w ith S O R N A d o es n o t al ter a sex o ff en d er’s i ndepende ntdutyt o reg ist eral l i nform at i on thati s r equi r ed by then -ex ist ing stat e l aw . U ni t ed Stat es v. Shenandoah , 572 F
. S u p p . 2 d 5 6 6 , 5 7 8 (M

. D
. P a. 20 0 8 ). -14- Facto C l aus e has no appl i cat i on t o hi s s i tuat i on. 4 C

. N o tice A rg u m e n ts Shenandoah ne xtcl ai m s thathe had no dut yt o r egi s t er underSO R N A beca us e the G overnm ent fai l ed t o not i fy hi m of th e se n e w re q u ire m e n ts . H e a rg u e s th a t w ith o u t th is not i fi cat i on, he coul d not“know i ngl yfai l t o regi s t er . ” See 18 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 0 ( a )( 3 ). A p ro v is io n o f S O R N A , 4 2 U .S .C . § 16917( a) , r equi r es thatoffe nder s bei ng di s char ged fr om pr i s on, be advis ed of their du ty t o r egis t er. O f cours e , b ecause Shenandoah w as r el eas ed fr om pr i s on befor e SO R N A w as enac t ed, i tfol l ow s that he coul d nothave be en i nform ed of the fede r al r egi s tr at i on r equi r em en t u pon r el eas e fr om cus t odyas d e s c ri b e d in § 1 6 9 1 7 (a ). S h e n a n d o a h a rg u e s th e re f o re , t h a t b e c a u s e 1 8 U .S .C . § 2250( a) r equi r es a know i ng vi ol at i on as an el ementof the offe ns e, the G overnm ent di d notal l ege a pr i m a f aci e vi ol at i on of § 2250( a)

. W e di s agr ee.-15- O v erloo k ed in this arg u m en t i s th e f ac t th at S O R N A ’s c ri m in a l p ro v is io n is n o t a s p e c if ic in te n t la w . See U

ni t ed Stat es v . G o u ld , 568 F. 3d 459, 468 ( 4 C i r . 2009)

. A s s et out i n 18 th U. S

. C. § 2 2 5 0 ( a ) , “ k n o wi n g l y ” mo d i f i e s “ f a i l s t o r e g i s t e r . ” As the C our tof A ppeal s forthe F our th C i r cui t hel d, “[t ] her e i s no l anguage r equi r i ng s peci fi c i nt entor a w i l l ful fai l ur e t o r egi s t er s uch thathe mustknow his fai l ur e t o r egi s t ervi ol at ed fe der al l aw . ” I d. , ci t i ng B r

yan v. U ni t ed Stat es , 524 U
. S. 184, 192- 93 (1 9 9 8 ) (n o tin g th a t “th e ter m ‘k n o w in g ly ’ d o e s n o t n e c e ss a rily have a nyr efe r ence t o a cul pabl e s t at e of m i nd ort o know l edge of the l aw ” and that“the t erm ‘ know i ngl y ’ m er el yr equi r es pr oof of know l edge of the fac t s that cons t i tut e the offe ns e”)

. R ece i pt of not i ce bya s ex off

en d er u n d er42 U
. S. C

. § 16917 i s notan el ementof the fe der al offe ns e w i th w hich S henandoa h w as c h a rg e d

. I t i s axi om at i c that i gnor ance of the l aw does notpr ovi de a d e f e n s e , f o ri ti s p r e s u me d th a te v e ryp e r s o n k n o ws th e l a w. See Cheek v

. U

ni t ed Stat es , 4 9 8 U .S . 1 9 2 , 1 9 9 (1 9 9 1 ); see al so U nit edStat es v. C ar bo , 5 7 2 F
. 3 d 1 1 2 , 1 1 6 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 9 ). Shenandoah a r gues fur th er that even i n the abs ence of ac tual not i ce of cr i m i nal l i abi l i ty , due pr oces s r equi r es thata s t atut e not c r i mi n a l i z e “ wh o l l y p a s s i v e c o n d u c t
. ” Re l y i n g o n th e S u p r e me C our t ’ s deci s i on i n L a m b e rt v . C a lif o rn ia , 355 U
. S. 225, 228 ( 1957) , Shenandoa h cl ai m s thathe i s bei ng pr os ecut ed for w h o l l ypas s i ve conduc t , namel yhi s fai l ur e t o r egi s t er . In L am bert , w h e n c o n sid e rin g a c ityo rd in a n c e th a t re q u ire d a ll fel ons t o r egi s t er , the Supr eme C our t not ed that“ci r cumst ance s w hi ch mi ghtm ove [a fel on] to i nqui r e as t o the nec es s i tyof r e g i s tr a t i o n a r e c o mp l e t e l y l a c k i n g ” wi th r e s p e c t t o s u c h a l a w. Id

. a t 2 2 9
. U n lik e a n iso late d c ityo rd in a n c e th a t re q u ire s a ll me mb e r s o f

th e b r o a d c l a s s o f

a l l f e l o n s t o r e g i s t e r , S OR NA in s tea d crim inalizes the fa il u re to reg ist er o f a m u ch m o re-16- n arro w ly targe ted class of p erso n s in a co n text w h e re s ex- offe nderr eg istr at i on has been the l aw fory ear s and Shenandoah kne w that

. I t i s undi s put ed t hatShenandoah kne w thathe w as r equi r ed t o regi s t erunderN ew Y or k l aw , w hi ch m andat ed thathe updat e hi s r egi s tr at i on i f he tr avel ed orm oved outof s t at e and that he re gi s t er i n the new s t at e. T he r egi s tr at i on form thatShenandoah signe d not i fi ed hi m of hi s l egal o b lig a tio n s a s a se x o f

f e n d e r e v e n th o u g h h e w a s n o t, an d c o u ld nothave be en, not i fi ed of hi s dutyunderfede ral l aw . W hen S O R N A w a s e n a c ted , e v e ry S tate h a d re g istra tio n re q u ire m e n ts f o r se x o f

f e n d e rs. T h e se c irc u m sta n c e s d o n o t p e rm it u s to concl ude thatShenandoah’ s due pr oces s r i ght s , bas ed on l ack of n o ti ce , w ere v iola te d

. S ee M ay , 5 3 5 F
. 3 d 9 1 2 , 9 2 1 (8th C ir

. 2008) ( hol di ng that not i ce of the duty t o r egi s t erunders t at e l aw p ro v id e s n o tice o f

th e d u tyto re g is ter u n d e r S O R N A ); U ni t ed Stat es v. Hi nckley , 550 F. 3d 926, 938- 39 ( 10th C i r . 2008) (sam e). W e can fi nd no r eas on t o hol d that SO R N A ’ s n ot i ce pr ovi s i on w as i nt ended t o dil u t e the ef fec tof s t at e not i ce re q u ire m e n ts. W e c o n c lu d e th a t S h e n a n d o a h h a d n o tice o f h is re g istra tio n o b lig a tio n s b a se d o n th e in f o rm a tio n p ro v id e d h im i n th e New Yo r k r e g i s tr a t i o n f o r ms , e v e n i f th a t n o t i c e di d not expl ai n thata cons equenc e of f ai l i ng t o r egi s ter w o u ld be a v i o l a t i o n o f

f e d e r a l l a w a n d s t a t e l a w.

I V. Shenandoah a l s o br i ngs s ever al otherbr oader C o n stitu tio n a l ch a llen g e s to S O R N A . H e a rg u e s th a t th e sta tu te vi ol at es the C om m er ce Cl aus e and the Tent h A m endmentof the C o n stitu tio n . H e a lso a rg u e s th a t S O R N A v io la te s h is c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t to in ter sta te tra v e l. A

. C om m erce C l ause-17- S h e n a n d o a h c o n ten d s th a t C o n g re ss e x c e e d e d its comm er ce c l aus e aut hor i ty w hen i t pas s ed S O R N A beca us e the sta tu te, h e a r g u e s , co n tain s n e ith e r a su f f icie n t n e x u s to comm er ce, nora s ubs t ant ia l eff ecton i nt er s t at e comm er ce. Al t h o u g h w e h a v e n o t h a d o c c a s i o n t o a d d r e s s th i s i s s u e , we n o w jo in th e o th e r c o u rts o f a p p e a ls th a t h a v e d o n e so , an d h o ld SO R N A t o be a pr operr egul at i on underC ongr es s ’ comm er ce p o w e r. See, e. g. , M

ay , 53 5 F
. 3d at92 1 -2 2 ; U n i t ed Stat es v. H o w e ll , 5 5 2 F .3 d 7 0 9 , 7 1 3 (8 C ir. 2 0 0 9 ); Hi nckley , 550 F. 3d th a t 9 3 9 -4 0 ; U

ni t ed St at es v. Law r ance , 548 F. 3d 1329, 1336- 37 (1 0 C ir. 2 0 0 8 ); U

nited S tates v. A m bert , 561 F. 3d 1202, 1210- th 1 1 (11 C ir

. 2 0 0 9 ).

th C ongr es s ’ comm er ce cl aus e pow er i s der i ved fr om A r t i cl e I , s ect i on 8 of the U ni t ed S tat es C ons t i tut i on, w hi ch p ro v id e s th a t “[ t]h e C o n g re ss sh a ll h a v e P o w e r . .. [ t]o re g u late C om m erce w i th fo rei gn N at i on s, and am on g the seve ral S t at es, and w i th the I ndi an Tri bes

. ” U

. S. C ons t
. art
. I , § 8 , cls. 1 & 3. C ongr es s m ay r egul at e i ntr as t at e act i vi ty s o l ong as the m eans empl oy ed byC ongr ess ar e “r eas onabl yadapt ed” t o the a tta in m e n t o f a le g itim a te e n d u n d e r th e c o m m e rc e p o w e r. See U ni t ed Stat es v. D ar by , 3 1 2 U
. S

. 1 0 0 , 1 2 1 (19 4 1 ). T he Supr eme C our ti n U nited Stat es v. Lopez , 51 4 U. S. 5 4 9 (1 9 9 5 ), syn th e siz e d a n d a rticu late d th e b o u n d a rie s o f th is pow er . I n Lopez , the C our t addr es s ed t he const i tut i onal i ty of the G un- Fr ee School Z ones A ctof 1990, 18 U
. S. C

. § 922( q) , w hi ch pr ohi bi t ed pos s es s i on of a fi r earm w i thi n a thous and fe etof a s chool

. T he Supr eme C our ts truck dow n the s t atut e, i dent i fy i ng th re e c a teg o rie s o f

a c tiv ityth a t C o n g re ss m a y re g u late u n d e r its comm er ce pow er : ( 1) “C ongr es s m ayr egul at e the us e of the channe l s of i nt er s t at e com m er ce; ” (2) “C ongr es s i s empow er ed to re g u late a n d p ro tec t th e in stru m e n tal it ie s o f in ter sta te comm er ce, orper s ons orthi ngs i n i nt er s t at e comm erc e, even though the t hr eat m ay come onl y fr om i ntr as t at e act i vi t i es ; ” and-18- (3 ) “ C o n g re ss ’ c o m m e rc e a u th o rityin c lu d e s th e p o w e r to re g u late th o se a c tiv iti e s h a v i ng a substa n tial re latio n to in ter sta te c o m m e rc e , i. e ., th o se act i vit i es th a t su b sta n tiallya f f e c t in ter sta te comm er ce. ” Id

. at 55 8 -59 (i n terna l ci tat ion s o m itted). SO R N A r equi r es the governm entt o pr ove that She n andoah tr avel ed i n i nt er s t at e orfor ei gn comm er ce, and th e re a f te r f a il e d to re g is te r a s re q u ir e d b yS O R N A

. See 18 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 0 (a )(2 )(B ); M ay , 535 F. 3d at921. SO R N A thus der i ves i t s author i tyfr om eac h p r ong of Lopez , and m ost sp eci fi cal l y , the abi l i ty t o r egu l at e “persons or things in in ter sta te c o m m e rc e ” a n d “ th e u se o f th e c h a n n e ls o f in ter sta te c o m m e rc e .” S h e n a n d o a h w a s u n d e n iab lya “ p e rso n .. . in i nt er s t at e comm er ce” i n thathe tr avel ed and r el ocat ed betw een N ew Y or k and Penns y l vani a. Shenandoah di d s o vi a the “us e of the cha nnel s of i nt er s t at e comm er ce. ” I thas b ee n l ong e sta b lish e d th a t C o n g re ss m a yf o rb id o r p u n ish u se o f

in ter sta te comm er ce “ as an age ncyt o pr om ot e i m m or al i ty , di s hones tyor the s pr ead of

anyevi l or harm t o the peopl e of others t at es fr om the s t at e of or i gi n. ” M ay , 5 3 5 F
. 3 d at922 ci t i ng B r ooks v. U ni t ed Stat es , 2 6 7 U .S . 4 3 2 , 4 3 6 (1 9 2 5 ); se e a lso G o u ld , 568 F. 3 d a t4 7 0
. Con g r e s s i o n a l r e g u l a t i o n o f th e c h a n n e l s of i nt er s t at e comm er ce ha s al s o been uphel d w hen the puni s hm ent
“ w a s in ten d e d to p re v e n t th e u se o f in ter sta te c o m m e rc e to fac i l i t at e . . . form s of i m m or al i ty . ” B r ooks , 267 U
. S. at437 (c itati o n o m itt e d ). S O R N A c o n tain s a su f f icie n t n e x u s to i nt er s t at e comm er ce. W e conc l ude that SO R N A i s a pr operr egul at i on of comm erc e underthe L op ez c a teg o rie s b e c a u se it n o t o n ly regul at es pers on s or things i n int ers t at e c o m m e rc e, bu tal so r egul at es the us e of c hannel s of i nt er s t at e comm er ce a nd theI n s o hol di ng, w e j oi n thos e court s thathave f ound 5. S O R N A t o d eri ve it s aut ho ri tyun d er the v ari ou s Lopez c a te g o ri e s . See, e. g. , G o u ld , 568 F. 3d 459 ( channe l s and in stru m e n talities ); A m bert , 561 F.3d 1202 ( channe l s and in stru m e n talities ); U

ni t ed Stat es v. Hi nckley , 5 5 0 F .3 d 9 2 6 (1 0 th C ir.2 0 0 8 ) (c h a n n e ls a n d in stru m e n talities ); M ay , 535 F. 3d 912 (8th C ir

. 2 0 0 8 ) (ch an n els an d instrum en tal it ies); U ni t ed Stat es v. D i xon , 55 1 F
. 3d 57 8 (7t h C i r. 20 08 ) ( C om m erce C l ause c h a llen g e re

jec ted o u trig h t); U

ni t ed Stat es v. La w r ance , 548 F
. 3 d 1 3 2 9 (10 th C ir

. 2 0 0 8 ) (ch an n els an d instrum en tal it ies). -19- i ns trum ent al i t i es of i nt er s t at e comm er ce. 5 B
. T enth A m endment Shenandoah a r gu es thatSO R N A i s uncons t i tut i onal beca u se it compel s N ew Y or k l aw enfor cementt o acc ept re g istra tio n s fr o m f

e d e ra lly -m a n d a ted se x o f f e n d e r p ro g ra m s in vi ol at i on of the Tent h A m endment , w hi ch p rov ide s that“[t ] he pow er s notdel egat ed t o the U ni t ed St at es bythe C ons t i tut i on, norpr ohi bi t ed byi tt o the St at es , ar e r es erved t o the St at es r es pect i vel y , ort o the peopl e. ” U

. S. C ons t
. amend X

. W e nee d nottarryl ong on thi s ar gum ent , beca us e Shenandoa h l acks s ta n d in g to ra is e th is is s u e . See U ni t ed Stat es v. H

acke r , 565 F. 3d 522, 525- 26 ( 8th C i r . 20 0 9 )

. A “pr i vat e partydoes not h a v e sta n d in g to a ss e rt th a t th e f e d e ra l g o v e rn m e n t is e ncroach i ng on st at e soverei gn ty i n vi olat i on of the T e n th A m e n d m e n t ab se n t th e in v o lv e m e n t o f a sta te o r its i ns trum ent al i t i es . ” I

d. ; s ee al s o B r ookl

yn Legal Ser vs . C or

p. v. LegalS erv s. C or

p. , 4 6 2 F
. 3 d 2 1 9 , 2 3 4 -36 (2d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ); Medei r os v. V

i ncent , 4 3 1 F .3 d 2 5 , 3 3 -3 6 (1 st C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. P arker , 3 6 2 F
. 3 d 1 2 7 9 , 1 2 8 4 (10 th C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ). H er e, j us tas i n Hacker , Shenandoah i s chal l engi ng SO R N A i n hi s i ndi vi dual capa ci ty , and he doe s notas s ertthe-20- “i nvol vementof a s t at e ori t s i ns trum ent al it i es . ” H acke r, 565 F

. 3d at 52 6
. S h en an d o ah h as n o t argu ed that h is in te rests are al i gn ed w i th an yst at e’s i nter est
. B ecause S hen and oah i s a pr i vat e party , he l acks s t andi ng t o r ai s e a T ent h A m endment c h a l l e n g e t o S OR NA. C

. R i ghtt o T r avel Shenandoah next argue s that18 U
. S. C

. § 2250( a) i m perm i s s i bl yi nfr i nges upon hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o tr avel b e c a u s e i t p u n i s h e s h i m f o r tr a v e l i n g t o a n o th e r s t a t e . He f u rth e r a rg u e s th a t S O R N A su b jec ts se x o f

f e n d e rs w h o tra v e l to a n o th e r sta te to a h a rsh e r p e n a lty th a n se x o f f e n d e rs w h o re m a in i n one s t at e. N ei therar gum enti s per s uas i ve.

“ [ T ]h e ‘c o n stitu ti o n a l rig h t to tra v e l f ro m o n e S tate to a n o th e r’ is f

ir m ly em b e d d e d in o u r j u ri s p ru d e n c e .” Saenz v. R oe , 526 U
. S. 489 ( 1999) ( quot i ng U nited S tates v. G uest , 38 3 U. S. 745, 757 ( 1966) )

. T her e ar e s ever al cons t i tut i onal bas es forthe ri g h t to tr a v e l, in c lu d in g g e n e ra l c o n s titu tio n a l p ri n c ip le s , s ee, e. g. , U nited States v. G uest , 383 U
. S. 745 ( 1966) ; the Pr i vi l eges and I m m uni t i es C laus e of A r t i cl e I V , § 2 of the C ons t i tut i on; He ss v . P a w lo sk i, 274 U
. S. 352 ( 1927) ; the Pr i vi l eges or Im m u n i t ie s C la u s e o f

th e F o u rt e e n th A m e n d m e n t, Tw i ni ng v. Stat e of N

. J. , 211 U
. S. 78 ( 1908) ; and the D ue Pr oces s C l aus e of th e F if th A m e n d m e n t; Stat e v. B arker, 252 K an. 949, 850 P. 2d 8 8 5 (K an . 1 9 9 3 ). I n Saenzv. R oe , the Supr eme C our ts truck dow n a C al i forn ia l aw t hat l i m i t ed w el fare benef i t s for new res i den t s. 526 U
. S. 489 ( 1999)

. T h e S u p reme C our thel d thatthe C o n stitu tio n p r o te c ts th e rig h ts o f U n ited S tate s c iti z e n s to choos e w her e theyl i ve and notbe tr eat ed di ffe r ent l ythan lo n g -t e rm re s id e n ts
. Id

. a t 5 0 0
. T hi s r i ghtt o tr avel “pr ot ect s the r i ghtof a ci t i zen of

one St at e t o ent erand t o l eave anotherSt at e,-21- the r i ghtt o be tr eat ed as a w el come vi s i t orr atherthan an unfr i endl yal i en w hen t empora r i l ypr es enti n th e second St at e, and, f o rth o s e tr a v e l e r s who e l e c tt o b e c o me p e r ma n e nt re s id e n ts , th e ri g h t to b e tr e a te d lik e o th e r c itiz e n s o f th a t S ta te .” Id

. at500. M os tr i ghtt o tr avel cas es, how ever , focus on the C o n stitu tio n a lityo f

a p a rticu lar sta te s tatu te th a t m a ytre a t a sta te’ s c iti z e n s in a p re f e rre d m a n n e r a s c o m p a re d to n e w ly a rr iv e d m ig ra n ts
. S e e e .g . D o e v . P a . B d . P ro b a tio n a n d P a ro le , 5 1 3 F
. 3 d 9 5 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 8 )

. He r e S h e n a n d o a h i n s i s t s : “ S OR NA p e n a lize s a d istin c t g ro u p o f se x o f f e n d e rs f o r e x e rc isin g th e ir r i ghtt o tr avel beca us e theyar e then s ubj ectt o fede r al p rose cu ti o n fo r fa il ing to re g ister as a sex o ff en d er w h ere in d iv id u a ls w h o d o n o t tr a v e l in te rs ta te a r e n o t s o p e n a liz e d .” T hi s i s true, but m eani ngl es s . Shenandoah m aytr avel i nt er s t at e, butw hen he doe s , m u st reg i s t eri n the new s t at e, w hi l e a c o n v icte d se x o f

f e n d e r w h o re m a in s w ith in a sta te n e e d o n ly r emai n pr oper l yr egi s t er ed ther ei n. T her e i s s i m p lyno C ons t i tut i onal vi ola t i on. M or eover , m ovi ng fr om one ju risdi ct i on t o an otherentai l s m anyregi strat i on requi rem ents r equi r ed byl aw w hi ch may caus e s om e i nconveni ence , but w hi ch do not undul y i nfr i nge upon any one’ s r i ght t o tr avel

. T he e ss e n tial p a rt o f

th e c h a rg e d c rim e in th is m a tter is th e f a ilu re to re g iste r; S h e n a n d o a h ’s rig h t to tra v e l is i n c id e n tal to th is o b lig a tio n , a n d n o t c o n s titu tio n a lly o f f e n d e d

. Fi nal l y , i t i s w or th not i ng thatthe C ons t i tut i onal r i ghtof i nt er s t at e tr avel i s notan absol ut e ri ght , and the bur den i m pos ed u p o n S h e n a n d o a h is n e c e ss a ryto a c h iev e a c o m p e lli n g in ter e st. Sex offe nder r egi s tr at i on r equi r ement s m aybe bur dens om e, and th e c o n s e q u e n c e s ma yi n t e r f e r e wi th a r e g i s tr a n t ' s f r e e d o m. H ow ever , s oci ety , thr ough i t s l egi s l at i ve proc es s es , has deci ded a g a in a n d a g a in th a t it h a s a c o m p e lli n g a n d stro n g in ter e st in preven t i ng futu re sex cri m es. W e con cl ud e t hat this i nter est-22- o u tw e ig h s a n yb u rd e n im p o s e d

. See a l so A m bert , 5 6 1 F. 3d at 1 2 1 0 ( “ T h e r e q u i r e me n tt o u p d a t e a r e g i s tr a t i o n u n d e rS OR NA i s und ou btedl ybu rdensom e; ho w ever, the g ov ernm ent' s i nter est i n pr ot ect i ng other s fr om futur e sexua l offe ns es and pr event i ng se x offen ders from subv ert i ng the purpose of the st atute is s uffi ci ent l yw ei ghtyt o over come t he bur den. T hi s s t atut e does notvi ol at e A m bert' s r i ghtt o tr avel

. ”)

. A nyi m pedi m enton S h e n a n d o a h ’s tra v e l d o e s n o t re a c h th e C o n stitu tio n a l th re sh o ld of hi s r i ghtt o t r avel i nt er s t at e. V
. S hen and oah add i t i on al l yargues that C on gress ’ d e l e g a t i o n o f

a u th o r i ty t o th e At t o rn e yGe n e r a l u n d e r4 2 U. S

. C. § 1 69 13 ( d) vi ol a t e s the no nd e l e ga t i on do c tr i ne . H e a l so m aintains that the A tt o rne y G en era l’ s Interim R u le of F eb rua ry 2 8 , 2 0 0 7 , v i o l a t e d th e Ad mi n i s tr a t i v e P r o c e d u r e s Ac t , 5 U. S

. C. § 553, byfai l i ng t o pr ovi de a publ i c not i ce a nd comm entper i od. W e do notr eac h thes e i s s ues . T he al l egat i ons cont ai ned in the ind ictm en t here d o n o t est ab li sh a re co rd o f S h en an d o ah ’s fai l ur e t o compl yw i th the i nit ia l re g istra tio n re q u ire m e n ts di s cus s ed i n 42 U
. S. C

. § 16913( b) & ( d)

. Si nce Shena ndoah w as al rea dya r egi s t er ed s ex off enderw hen SO R N A w as enac t ed, SO R N A onl yr equi r ed hi m t o keep hi s r egi s tr at i on curr enton and af t erJ ul y27, 2 006. T o the ext entthathe ar gues thatthe p a ss a g e o f

S O R N A sh o u ld b e c o n stru e d to m e a n th a t all re g iste re d se x o f

f e n d e rs a re o n c e a g a in re q u ire d to in it ially reg is t erpur s uantt o § 16913( b) & ( d) , w e di s agr ee. Such a r eadi ng of the s t atut e i s not w arr ant ed bythe s t atut oryl anguage orcomm on s ens e. W hi l e s ubs ect ion s (b) and ( d) w hen r ead to g e th e r se e m to c o n tem p late th e n e e d f o r c lar if ica tio n a s to “i ni t i al r egi s tr at i ons ” byper s ons convi ct ed of q u ali fy i ng s ex offe ns es pr i ort o J ul y27, 2006, that need for cl ar i fi cat i on appl i es t o a l i m i t ed cl as s o f p er s ons w ho, forvar i ous r eas ons , di d not-23- h a v e a r e g i s tr a t i o n r e q u i r e me n tp r i o rt o th e p a s s a g e o f S OR NA butnonethel es s w er e s ubj ectt o s ex o ff en derr egi s tr at i on r equi r ement s aft erSO R N A beca m e l aw on J ul y27, 2006. S hen and oah do es not fal l w i thin this cl ass of persons. T h e a ll e g a tio n s in th is c a se c lea rlyp e rta in to Shenandoah’ s fai l ur e t o keep hi s r egi s tr at i on curren t a nd, as s u c h , a re c o v e re d b y4 2 U .S .C . § 1 6 9 1 3 (a ) & (c ). See M ay , 535 F. 3d at918- 19. U n derthes e s ubs ect i ons , Shenandoah w as r equi r ed t o “kee p [hi s ] r egi s tr at i on curr ent , i n eac h j ur i s di ct i on” i n w hi ch he reside d and “notl at erthan 3 bus i nes s day s aft er e a c h c h a n g e o f

. . . res id e n c e . . . a p p e a r in p e rso n in a t lea st 1 j ur i s di ct i on . . . and i nform that j ur i s di ct i on of al l change s i n the i n f o r ma t i o n r e q u i r e d

. . . i n th e s e x o f f e n d e r r e g i s try . ” 4 2 U. S

. C. § 1 6 9 1 3 (a) & (c). T he r egul at i ons pr om ul gat ed bythe A t t orneyG ener al pur s uantt o § 16913 (d) do notappl yher e and w e expr es s no opi ni on on thei rval i di ty . T he manner i n w hi ch thes e r egul at i ons w er e pr om ul gat ed pur s uantt o the del egat i on co n t ai ned i n § 16913( d) , i s l i kew i s e i rr el evants i nce w e h a v e conc l uded thatthe al l egat i ons agai ns tShenandoah d o n o ti nvol ve an “ i ni t i al r e g is tr a tio n ” p u rs u a n t to § 1 6 9 1 3 (b ). See M ay , 5 3 5 F. 3 d at 916- 19. B eca us e Shenandoa h had al r eadyi ni t i al l yr egi s t er ed as a s ex offenderunders t at e l aw w hen SO R N A w as enac t ed, s ub sec ti o n ( d) of Sect i on 16913 di d notappl yt o hi m . H e w as r equi r ed t o keep hi s r egi s tr at i on curr entunders ubs ect i ons ( a) and (c )

. H e di d not do s o. Shenandoah w as then cha r ged under th e c o n g re ss io n a lly -d e f in e d c r im e in 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 0 a n d in part i cul ar fo rfai l i ng t o updat e hi s r egi s tr at i on. T he A t t orney G ener al ’ s i nt er i m rul e as t o i ni t i al r egi s tr at i ons s i m pl ydoes not a p p ly. S h e n a n d o a h , the re f o re , d o e s n o t h a v e sta n d in g to chal l enge the rul e orthe manneri n w hi ch i tw as pr om ul gat ed. V I.-24- T he j udgm entof the D i s tr i ctC our tw i l l be af fi r m ed.