Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Chad Andrew BERKLEY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-21
Citations: 542 F. App'x 678
Docket Number: No. 12-10140
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Chad Andrew BERKLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 542
Pages: 678–679

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Chad Andrew BERKLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-10140.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 15, 2013.
Filed Oct. 21, 2013.
Karen Elizabeth Rolley, Assistant U.S. Office of the U.S. Attorney Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Darla Jean Mondou, Esquire Mondou Law Office Maraña, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Chad Andrew Berkley appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction for failure to register as a sex offender, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Berkley argues that the registration requirements of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act ("SORNA") did not apply to him when he moved from Pennsylvania to Arizona in 2010, because the Attorney General's SMART guidelines, which made the requirements retroactive as of August 1, 2008, did not comply with the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). Berkley's claim is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Valverde, 628 F.3d 1159, 1164, 1169 (9th Cir.2010), in which we held that the final SMART guidelines issued on July 2, 2008, complied with the APA's procedural requirements and that SORNA became effective against offenders like Berkley, who were convicted before the statute's enactment, on August 1, 2008. See United States v. Mattix, 694 F.3d 1082, 1084-85 (9th Cir.2012) (per curiam), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 139, 187 L.Ed.2d 99, 2013 WL 2417739 (U.S. Oct. 7, 2013).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.