Opinion ID: 2977737
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Application of SORNA to Samuels

Text: Samuels next argues the district court erred in concluding SORNA applied to him. Specifically, he contends SORNA does not apply to sex offenders, like himself, who traveled in interstate commerce between the enactment of SORNA and February 27, 2007, the date the Interim Rule was promulgated. SORNA applies to Samuels regardless of the fact he traveled in interstate commerce before promulgation of the Interim Rule. “The bulk of [SORNA] does not make a distinction between those convicted before the Act and those convicted after. It imposes its requirements on ‘sex offenders,’ without qualification.” United States v. May, 535 F.3d 912, 917 (8th Cir. 2008) (citing United States v. Roberts, No. 6:07-CR-70031, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54646, 2007 WL 2155750 (W.D. Va. July 27, 2007)). Furthermore, “42 U.S.C. § 16913(d) only applies to initial registration. This construction makes sense when one considers that a sex offender convicted before July 27, 2006, would, in many cases, be unable to comply with the initial registration requirements of SORNA because the time limits for initial registration would have already passed when SORNA was enacted.” May, 535 F.3d at 918 (citing United States v. Beasley, No. 1:07-CR-115-TCB, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85793, 2007 WL 3489999 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 10, 2007) (internal citation omitted)). Moreover, the cases upon which Samuels relies are inapposite. In United States v. Kapp, 487 F. Supp. 2d 536 (M.D. Pa. 2007) and United States v. Smith, 528 F. Supp. 2d 615 (S.D. W.Va. 2007), the defendants allegedly failed to register or update a registration prior to February 28, 2007. -8- No. 08-5537 U.S. v. Samuels In United States v. Deese, No. CR-07-167-L, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70677, 2007 WL 2778362 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 21, 2007) and United States v. Sallee, No. CR-07-152-L, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68350, 2007 WL 3283739 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 13, 2007), while the alleged failure to register or update a registration occurred both before and after February 28, 2007, the defendants’ respective travel occurred before SORNA’s enactment. To the contrary, Samuels’s interstate travel occurred after SORNA’s enactment and the Indictment charges him with failing to register or update a registration for time periods after February 28, 2007. Accordingly, SORNA applies to Samuels and he was properly charged in the Indictment.