United States v. Yelloweagle

Filing

[9863025] Affirmed. Terminated on the merits after oral hearing. Written, signed, published. Judges Tacha, Kelly and Holmes, author. Mandate to issue.

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Appellate Case: 09-1247 Document: 01018632336 Date Filed: 05/02/2011Circuit 1
Tenth Page:

May 2, 2011
PUBLISH

Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.

No. 09-1247

ALDEN YELLOWEAGLE,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado
(D.C. No. 1:08-CR-00364-WYD-1)

Jill M. Wichlens, Assistant Federal Public Defender (Raymond P. Moore, Federal
Public Defender, with her on the briefs), Denver, Colorado, for DefendantAppellant.
Michael Conrad Johnson, Assistant United States Attorney (David M. Gaouette,
United States Attorney, and Hayley Elizabeth Reynolds, Assistant United States
Attorney, with him on the brief), Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before TACHA, KELLY, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

HOLMES, Circuit Judge.
Congress has enacted an elaborate system of registration and reporting
requirements for individuals convicted of sex offenses. The law requires all sex
offenders to register, regardless of whether their convictions are based on federal

Appellate Case: 09-1247 Document: 01018632336 Date Filed: 05/02/2011 Page: 2

or state law. For those sex offenders whose convictions are based on federal law,
an enforcement provision provides that the failure to register or update a
registration constitutes a new federal crime.
Alden Yelloweagle, the appellant here, was previously convicted of a
federal sex offense. When he failed to register as required, he was indicted by
federal authorities under the enforcement provision. Mr. Yelloweagle moved to
dismiss the indictment for various reasons. Two of the reasons he offered are
relevant here. First, he contended that no provision of the Constitution authorizes
Congress to require all sex offenders to register. Accordingly, Mr. Yelloweagle
argued, he could not be punished for failing to comply with the requirement.
Second, even if the registration requirement was valid, Mr. Yelloweagle
contended that the criminal enforcement provision also lacked a jurisdictional
basis and therefore was unconstitutional. The district court denied the motion to
dismiss.
In his opening brief on appeal, Mr. Yelloweagle makes no mention of the
first argument regarding the registration requirement; he focuses only on the
claim that Congress lacks the power to criminalize the failure to register under the
enforcement provision. The government argues that this tactical shift dooms Mr.
Yelloweagle’s appeal, for if the registration requirement is presumed to be
constitutional, then the criminal provision is valid under the Necessary and Proper
Clause. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 18. We agree.
-2-

Appellate Case: 09-1247 Document: 01018632336 Date Filed: 05/02/2011 Page: 3

More specifically, we conclude that Mr. Yelloweagle has abandoned on
appeal his constitutional challenge to the registration requirement. When we
assume that the registration requirement is constitutional, it follows that the
criminal statute enforcing compliance with that requirement is a valid exercise of
congressional authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause. For this reason,
we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
I.

BACKGROUND
A.

The Sex Offender Registration and Enforcement Regime

In 2006, based on its conclusion that existing sex-offender registration and
reporting requirements were too readily circumvented, Congress enacted the
Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (“Adam Walsh Act”), Pub.
L. No. 109-248, 120 Stat. 587 (codified in scattered sections of 8, 10, 18, 21, 28,
and 42 U.S.C.). See United States v. Gould, 568 F.3d 459, 473–74 (4th Cir. 2009)
(discussing Congressional findings), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1686 (2010). The
Act sought “to protect the public from sex offenders and offenders against
children” by establishing “a comprehensive national system for the registration of
those offenders.” 42 U.S.C. § 16901.
Title I of the Adam Walsh Act is called the Sex Offender Registration and
Notification Act (“SORNA”). “SORNA was enacted to keep track of sex
offenders.” United States v. George, 625 F.3d 1124, 1129 (9th Cir. 2010).
Among other things, SORNA requires each state to “maintain a jurisdiction-wide
-3-

Appellate Case: 09-1247 Document: 01018632336 Date Filed: 05/02/2011 Page: 4

sex offender registry,” 42 U.S.C. § 16912(a), and to “provide a criminal penalty
that includes a maximum term of imprisonment that is greater than 1 year for the
failure of a sex offender to comply” with the Act’s registration requirements, id.
§ 16913(e). States are also required to publicize certain information about
registered sex offenders, id. § 16918, and to share that information with federal
and other state law enforcement authorities, id. § 16921. States failing to
establish a registration and notification system in accordance with SORNA risk
losing federal funding. See id. § 16925; see also United States v. Shenandoah,
595 F.3d 151, 155–56 (3d Cir.) (discussing various provisions of SORNA), cert.
denied, 130 S. Ct. 3433 (2010). All states have enacted registration regimes. See
Carr v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2229, 2239 n.7 (2010) (citing Smith v. Doe, 538
U.S. 84, 90 (2003)).
In addition to requiring states to establish registration regimes, SORNA
imposes a separate federal registration requirement. It provides:
A sex offender shall register, and keep the registration current,
in each jurisdiction where the offender resides, where the
offender is an employee, and where the offender is a student. For
initial registration purposes only, a sex offender shall also
register in the jurisdiction in which convicted if such jurisdiction
is different from the jurisdiction of residence.
42 U.S.C. § 16913(a). SORNA defines “sex offender” as “an individual who was
convicted of a sex offense.” Id. § 16911(1). The Act lists certain categories of
criminal convictions that qualify as sex offenses, and makes clear that the

-4-

Appellate Case: 09-1247 Document: 01018632336 Date Filed: 05/02/2011 Page: 5

registration requirement is applicable to all sex offenders, whether their
convictions are based on federal or state law. See id. § 16911(5)–(6).
In addition to the requirement that states enact criminal penalties for the
failure to register, SORNA contains its own criminal provision, 18 U.S.C.
§ 2250(a), which provides that an individual who fails to register under § 16913
is guilty of an independent federal offense. Unlike § 16913, which applies to all
sex offenders regardless of whether their convictions arise under federal or state
law, § 2250(a) criminalizes the failure to register for only two classes of sex
offenders. It provides:
(a) In General.—Whoever—
(1) is required to register under the Sex Offender
Registration and Notification Act;
(2)(A) is a sex offender as defined for the purposes of the
Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act by reason
of a conviction under Federal law (including the Uniform
Code of Military Justice), the law of the District of
Columbia, Indian tribal law, or the law of any territory or
possession of the United States; or
(B) travels in interstate or foreign commerce, or enters or
leaves, or resides in, Indian country; and
(3) knowingly fails to register or update a registration as
required by the Sex Offender Registration and Notification
Act;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10
years, or both.

-5-

Appellate Case: 09-1247 Document: 01018632336 Date Filed: 05/02/2011 Page: 6

18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). Thus, § 2250(a) “imposes criminal liability on two
categories of persons who fail to adhere to SORNA’s registration requirements:
any person who is a sex offender ‘by reason of a conviction under Federal law
. . . ,’ § 2250(a)(2)(A), and any other person required to register under SORNA
who ‘travels in interstate or foreign commerce . . . ,’ § 2250(a)(2)(B).” Carr, 130
S. Ct. at 2238. The only sex offenders not subject to § 2250(a) are those with
state convictions who never leave the state in which they were convicted. See id.;
accord United States v. Guzman, 591 F.3d 83, 90 (2d Cir.) (noting that “a sex
offender whose underlying conviction was obtained pursuant to state law and who
never crosses state lines . . . cannot be criminally liable for failure to comply with
SORNA”), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 3487 (2010).
B.

Facts of Mr. Yelloweagle’s Case

In 2005, Mr. Yelloweagle pleaded guilty in the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado to abusive sexual conduct in Indian country, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2244(a)(2) and 1153. He was sentenced to a term of
imprisonment of a year and a day, to be followed by a one-year term of
supervised release. One of the conditions of Mr. Yelloweagle’s supervised
release was that he “register with the state sex offender registration agency in the
state where [he] resides, works, or is a student.” R., Vol. 1, at 105 (J. in Crim.
Case, filed Mar. 30, 2005). After his sentencing, but before the expiration of his
term of supervised release, Congress enacted SORNA.
-6-

Appellate Case: 09-1247 Document: 01018632336 Date Filed: 05/02/2011 Page: 7

Mr. Yelloweagle maintained his registration information in Colorado until
May 13, 2007, when he missed a scheduled registration update. He eventually
turned up in Oklahoma, where he was implicated in another sex crime. Federal
authorities in Colorado subsequently indicted him for violating 18 U.S.C.
§ 2250(a)(2)(A). 1
Mr. Yelloweagle moved to dismiss the indictment, contending, inter alia,
that Congress lacked the power under the Constitution to enact either the
registration requirement, § 16913, or the enforcement provision, § 2250(a)(2)(A).
First, as to the registration requirement, Mr. Yelloweagle asserted that § 16913
was invalid because it purported to require registration of all sex offenders,
regardless of whether they had crossed state lines. He argued that Congress
lacked the authority to impose such a requirement under the Commerce Clause,
see U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3 (“The Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate
Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the

1

That Mr. Yelloweagle traveled from Colorado to Oklahoma means
that he could have been charged under § 2250(a)(2)(B), which criminalizes the
failure to register for any sex offender who “travels in interstate . . . commerce,”
as well as under § 2250(a)(2)(A), which criminalizes the failure to register for sex
offenders “by reason of a conviction under Federal law.” The government argued
in its brief on appeal that we should affirm Mr. Yelloweagle’s conviction under
§ 2250(a)(2)(B) because of his interstate travel. At oral argument, however,
counsel for the United States conceded that, owing to an “oversight,” Mr.
Yelloweagle was in fact charged only under § 2250(a)(2)(A). See Oral Argument
at 15:40–16:23. We appreciate and accept this concession and proceed under the
view that § 2250(a)(2)(B) is not implicated in this case.
-7-

Appellate Case: 09-1247 Document: 01018632336 Date Filed: 05/02/2011 Page: 8

Indian Tribes.”), or under any other provision of the Constitution. Because
registration under § 16913 is an element of § 2250(a), Mr. Yelloweagle reasoned
that if the registration requirement was invalid, then his indictment must be
dismissed. Second, even if § 16913 passed constitutional muster, Mr.
Yelloweagle argued that § 2250(a)(2)(A) itself was invalid because it purported to
criminalize the failure to register by all federal sex offenders. He contended that
Congress lacked the power under the Commerce Clause, or any other provision of
the Constitution, to enact such a broad enforcement provision.
The district court denied Mr. Yelloweagle’s motion, concluding that
Congress’s authority to criminalize defendants’ initial sex offenses empowered it
to enact the statute at issue here. “Congress,” the district court stated, “does not
need to provide any outside source of authority for this legislation.” R., Vol. 1, at
203 (Order, filed Dec. 23, 2008). Mr. Yelloweagle subsequently pleaded guilty to
violating § 2250(a)(2)(A), but reserved the right to appeal the district court’s
denial of his motion to dismiss. He filed a timely notice of appeal. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
II.

DISCUSSION
A.

Standard of Review

On appeal, Mr. Yelloweagle argues that Congress lacked the authority
under the Constitution to enact § 2250(a)(2)(A). This is a legal argument which
we review de novo. See, e.g., United States v. Lawrance, 548 F.3d 1329, 1332
-8-

Appellate Case: 09-1247 Document: 01018632336 Date Filed: 05/02/2011 Page: 9

(10th Cir. 2008) (“In reviewing constitutional challenges to a statute, our review
is de novo.”); United States v. Grimmett, 439 F.3d 1263, 1271 (10th Cir. 2006)
(“We review the constitutionality of a statute de novo.”); see also United States v.
Cook, 599 F.3d 1208, 1213 (10th Cir.) (“[W]e review de novo an ultimate
question of constitutional law.”), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 331 (2010).
Mr. Yelloweagle appears to be raising a facial challenge to
§ 2250(a)(2)(A): he argues that Congress lacked the authority to enact the law,
not that the statute is unconstitutional as applied to him. See Gonzales v. Raich,
545 U.S. 1, 23 (2005) (distinguishing facial constitutional challenges under the
Commerce Clause, under which “the parties asserted that a particular statute or
provision fell outside Congress’ commerce power in its entirety,” from the
challenge then before the Court, under which the litigants “ask[ed] [it] to excise
individual applications of a concededly valid statutory scheme”); Hodel v. Va.
Surface Mining & Reclamation Ass’n, 452 U.S. 264, 268 (1981) (resolving “in the
context of a facial challenge,” the question of “whether Congress, in adopting the
[Surface Mining] Act, exceeded its powers under the Commerce Clause of the
Constitution”). In any event, Mr. Yelloweagle has not objected to the
government’s description of his claim as a facial one. See Aplee. Br. at 14.
Therefore, we are content to assume that Mr. Yelloweagle challenges the
constitutional validity of § 2250(a)(2)(A) on its face.
B.

Mr. Yelloweagle Waived His Challenge to § 16913
-9-

Appellate Case: 09-1247 Document: 01018632336 Date Filed: 05/02/2011 Page: 10

Because of Mr. Yelloweagle’s alleged waiver (i.e., abandonment) on appeal
of his challenge to § 16913, the government argues that we may affirm the
judgment of the district court under the Necessary and Proper Clause without
addressing the lion’s share of Mr. Yelloweagle’s constitutional arguments. The
government points out that, before the district court, Mr. Yelloweagle argued that
Congress lacked the authority to enact § 16913 and that Congress lacked the
authority to enact § 2250(a)(2)(A). According to the government, however, Mr.
Yelloweagle has abandoned on appeal his challenge to § 16913, apparently
conceding that Congress has the authority to require all sex offenders to register.
The government contends that this concession dooms Mr. Yelloweagle’s appeal;
without a challenge to § 16913, it reasons, we should sustain § 2250(a)(2)(A)
under the Necessary and Proper Clause.
To determine if the government is correct, we must answer two questions.
First, has Mr. Yelloweagle waived his challenge to § 16913 on appeal? Second, if
he has waived his challenge to § 16913, can we sustain § 2250(a)(2)(A) under the
Necessary and Proper Clause? We address the first question in this section, and
the second question in Part II.C.
1.

Waiver Principles

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28 provides that an appellant’s brief
must contain, inter alia, “appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them.” Fed.

-10-

Appellate Case: 09-1247 Document: 01018632336 Date Filed: 05/02/2011 Page: 11

R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A). Under this rule, where a defendant raises an issue before
the district court but does not pursue it on appeal, we ordinarily consider the issue
waived. See, e.g., Bronson v. Swensen, 500 F.3d 1099, 1104 (10th Cir. 2007)
(“Consistent with [Rule 28(a)(9)(A)], we routinely have declined to consider
arguments that are not raised, or are inadequately presented, in an appellant’s
opening brief.”); Fairchild v. Workman, 579 F.3d 1134, 1141 n.2 (10th Cir. 2009)
(“Generally, the failure to raise an argument in one’s initial filing will cause it to
be waived.”); see also Vaz Dos Reis v. Holder, 606 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 2010)
(“When a party disavows a particular theory of the case, it is not an appellate
court’s proper role to make the disavowed argument for him.”).
2.

Mr. Yelloweagle Waived His Challenge to § 16913 on
Appeal

When we compare the arguments Mr. Yelloweagle made before the district
with the arguments that he presents to us on appeal, it is plain that Mr.
Yelloweagle has waived (i.e., abandoned) his challenge to § 16913 on appeal.
a.

Arguments before the District Court

Before the district court, the centerpiece of Mr. Yelloweagle’s argument for
dismissing the indictment was his claim that Congress lacked the power to enact
the registration requirement found in § 16913. For example, in his motion to
dismiss the indictment, Mr. Yelloweagle contended:

-11-

Appellate Case: 09-1247 Document: 01018632336 Date Filed: 05/02/2011 Page: 12

Congress lacks the authority to direct all individuals—regardless
of whether they traveled in interstate commerce—to register as
sex offenders. Because § 16913 is unconstitutional, it cannot be
used to trigger any obligation for a prior offender to register
under SORNA. In turn, the first element of § 2250 cannot be
satisfied, and the indictment must be dismissed.
R., Vol. 1, at 65 (Resubmitted Mot. to Dismiss Indict., filed Oct. 16, 2008); see
also id. at 62–63 (“Since § 16913 has been improperly enacted by Congress, any
criminal prosecution under § 2250(a) predicated on the unconstitutional statu[t]e
cannot stand.”); id. at 67 (“[I]t is clear that Congress does not have the power to
impose Title 42’s registration requirements on individual citizens who never
travel in interstate commerce . . . .” (emphasis omitted)); id. at 74–75 (“[T]he
registration requirements of SORNA are unconstitutional. As it is necessary for a
defendant to be ‘required to register under the Sex Offender Registration and
Notification Act’ in order to violate § 2250, the Indictment against him must be
dismissed.”). In addition to his primary focus on § 16913, Mr. Yelloweagle also
contended that “[e]ven if Congress has the authority to enact the Title 42
registration requirements, the relevant criminal provision of [§ 2250(a)(2)(A)]
itself is unconstitutional.” Id. at 63. But, in his motion to dismiss, he dedicated
only one page to the contention that § 2250(a)(2)(A) was unconstitutional in its
own right, see id. at 75–76, compared with the ten pages he used to argue that
§ 16913 was invalid, see id. at 65–75.

-12-

Appellate Case: 09-1247 Document: 01018632336 Date Filed: 05/02/2011 Page: 13

In its response to Mr. Yelloweagle’s motion to dismiss, the government
sought to turn the focus away from § 16913 and onto the criminal provision alone.
“The defendant,” said the government, “is not being charged with violating 42
U.S.C. § 16913. He is being charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 2250. Thus, the
elements of § 2250 are relevant to the Commerce Clause analysis.” Id. at 85
(Gov’t’s Combined Resp. to Mot. to Dismiss, filed Oct. 20, 2008). Section 2250
is valid under the Commerce Clause, the government urged, and this provides the
jurisdictional hook necessary to sustain Mr. Yelloweagle’s indictment. Mr.
Yelloweagle rejected the government’s approach:
This is an odd argument for the government to assert, for the
elements of § 2250(a)(2)(A)—the statute which Mr. Yelloweagle
is charged under—do not require the government to prove that
Mr. Yelloweagle traveled in interstate commerce. . . . Therefore,
resort to 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a)(2)(A), does not help the
government establish that 42 U.S.C. § 16913 is a valid exercise
of Congress’s Commerce Clause authority.
Id. at 150–51 (Reply to Gov’t’s Combined Resp., filed Nov. 14, 2008). Mr.
Yelloweagle reasoned that because neither the registration requirement nor the
criminal enforcement provision contained a jurisdictional hook, Congress lacked
the authority to require Mr. Yelloweagle’s registration. Id. at 151.
The government advanced an additional theory in its next responsive filing,
moving away from its reliance on the Commerce Clause and instead arguing that
Congress possesses the authority to enact SORNA based on defendants’ prior

-13-

Appellate Case: 09-1247 Document: 01018632336 Date Filed: 05/02/2011 Page: 14

federal sex offense convictions. Applying this theory, the government pointed out
that under the plain terms of § 2250(a)(2)(A) it was a crime for Mr. Yelloweagle
to fail to register simply because he was a sex offender “by reason of a conviction
under Federal law.” Id. at 178 (Gov’t’s Suppl. to Combined Resp. to Mot. to
Dismiss, filed Dec. 5, 2008). Because Mr. Yelloweagle “has not raised any issue
challenging Congress’ authority to enact” the statutes underlying his federal sex
offense conviction, the government argued that Congress possesses the authority
to enact SORNA without needing to rely on the Commerce Clause. Id.
Mr. Yelloweagle responded. Although he did not dispute that Congress had
the power to criminalize his original sex crime, he rejected the idea that this
initial exercise of jurisdiction gave Congress the authority to enact SORNA. In
making this argument, Mr. Yelloweagle continued to emphasize § 16913 as the
lynchpin of his challenge to the indictment:
[R]ecognizing that Mr. Yelloweagle’s prior federal conviction
was enacted under a constitutional statute says nothing about
Congress’s power (or lack thereof) to enact a new criminal
provision and bring a new federal charge, based on the broad
requirement that all prior federal sex offenders must register.
Id. at 185 (Def.’s Reply to Gov’t’s Suppl. Resp., filed Dec. 12, 2008). In a final
filing termed “Relevant Authority Concerning Defendant’s Motions to Dismiss
Indictment,” Mr. Yelloweagle again listed as his primary issue the claim that
“SORNA’s registration requirements, e.g. 42 U.S.C. § 16913, violate the

-14-

Appellate Case: 09-1247 Document: 01018632336 Date Filed: 05/02/2011 Page: 15

Commerce Clause.” Id. at 188 (filed Dec. 12, 2008). As a second and separate
issue, however, he did contend that “SORNA’s criminal provision, 18 U.S.C.
§ 2250(a)(2)(A), is unconstitutional; it violates the Commerce Clause, and/or it is
an ultra vire[s] congressional enactment.” Id. In other words, as the exchange of
filings came to a close, there was no indication that Mr. Yelloweagle had pivoted
from his focus on § 16913.
The district court denied Mr. Yelloweagle’s motion to dismiss, adopting the
government’s last argument and ruling from the bench that “Congress . . . has the
inherent authority to make laws such as SORNA that impact anybody who has
been found guilty of a federal offense.” R., Vol. 2, at 17 (Mot. Hr’g Tr., dated
Dec. 22, 2008). The court followed its oral ruling with a written order to the
same effect, stating that “Congress plainly has the authority to criminalize the
failure to register based on a prior federal sex offense conviction, and . . .
Congress does not need to provide any outside source of authority for this
legislation.” R., Vol. 1, at 203 (Order, filed Dec. 23, 2008). The district court
did not identify any provision of the Constitution supporting its conclusion that
Congress has “inherent authority” to enact SORNA. However, as counsel for Mr.
Yelloweagle seems to have acknowledged at the hearing before the district court,
the most sensible basis for this holding is the Necessary and Proper Clause. 2

2

In arguing against the logic eventually adopted by the district court,
(continued...)
-15-

Appellate Case: 09-1247 Document: 01018632336 Date Filed: 05/02/2011 Page: 16

b.

Arguments on Appeal

From the first page of Mr. Yelloweagle’s opening brief, it is evident that he
has adopted a new litigation strategy before us. He describes the issue on appeal
as follows:
Does 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a)(2)(A), which criminalizes the failure
to register as a sex offender by anyone with a prior conviction for
a federal sex offense, exceed the scope of Congress’s power
under the Constitution? Stated another way, does the mere fact
of a prior federal conviction give Congress the constitutional
authority to make a future act or omission of the prior offender
a federal crime?
Aplt. Opening Br. at 1. This statement is not a challenge to Congress’s authority
to require registration under § 16913. Nor is it an argument that § 2250(a)(2)(A)
is invalid because the failure to register is an element of the criminal statute. To

2

(...continued)
counsel stated:
[I]t cannot be . . . that . . . simply . . . because someone at some
point or another has had a federal conviction, that they are
suddenly subject for all time, in perpetuity . . . to federal
jurisdiction based upon that.
....
. . . [T]here might be a temptation to suggest that the
[N]ecessary and [P]roper [C]lause would be implicated, but that’s
got to be associated in some fashion or another with another
power.
R., Vol. 2, at 11–12.
-16-

Appellate Case: 09-1247 Document: 01018632336 Date Filed: 05/02/2011 Page: 17

the contrary, this statement neatly presents a discrete question: Does Congress
have the power to enact § 2250(a)(2)(A)?
This focus continues through the initial sections of Mr. Yelloweagle’s
opening brief. In describing the procedural history of the case in the “Statement
of Facts,” Mr. Yelloweagle focuses exclusively on § 2250(a)(2)(A); he does not
mention § 16913. See id. at 4 (“Mr. Yelloweagle moved to dismiss the indictment
on the ground, among others, that Congress lacked the authority to enact 18
U.S.C. § 2250(a)(2)(A).” (emphasis omitted)); id. at 6 (“In fact, Mr. Yelloweagle
averred, there is no such constitutional source; the Constitution is devoid of any
congressional authorization for a statute such as § 2250(a)(2)(A).”). In the
“Summary of Argument,” he offers the following preview of his contentions on
appeal:
Mr. Yelloweagle challenges the constitutionality of 18
U.S.C. § 2250(a)(2)(A), a provision of the Sex Offender
Registration and Notification Act that criminalizes the failure to
register as a sex offender by anyone with a prior federal sex
offense conviction. . . .
Unlike other provisions of SORNA, § 2250(a)(2)(A) is
outside the scope of Congress’s limited power to enact criminal
laws. None of the powers of Congress enumerated in the
Constitution authorizes its enactment. The statute, therefore, is
unconstitutional.

-17-

Appellate Case: 09-1247 Document: 01018632336 Date Filed: 05/02/2011 Page: 18

Id. at 11. Again Mr. Yelloweagle does not cite § 16913, and his casual references
to the registration requirement give no hint that he is arguing—as he did before
the district court—that § 16913 is itself invalid.
Any doubt about Mr. Yelloweagle’s contentions on appeal is resolved in his
“Argument” section, where he explicitly disclaims a challenge to any part of
SORNA other than the enforcement provision:
Mr. Yelloweagle attacks the constitutionality of a discrete
provision of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act,
namely 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a)(2)(A). That provision of the Act
criminalizes failure to register by anyone who is a sex offender
“by reason of a conviction under Federal law.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 2250(a)(2)(A). It does not require interstate, foreign, or Indian
country travel before such failure to register.
Mr. Yelloweagle’s challenge is very narrow. He does not
challenge SORNA as a whole, and he does not challenge
§ 2250(a)(2)(B), which, unlike § 2250(a)(2)(A), requires travel
in interstate or foreign commerce, or in Indian country.
Id. at 12 (emphasis omitted).
Mr. Yelloweagle mentions § 16913 only once in his opening brief,
offhandedly observing that “[a]s described in § 2250(a)(1), Mr. Yelloweagle is a
person ‘required to register under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification
Act.’ 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a)(1). He was required to register by virtue of SORNA
provision 42 U.S.C. § 16913(a) . . . .” Id. at 13.
c.

Waiver of § 16913 Challenge
-18-

Appellate Case: 09-1247 Document: 01018632336 Date Filed: 05/02/2011 Page: 19

In light of Mr. Yelloweagle’s appellate litigation strategy, the government
contends that we should conclude that he has waived (i.e., abandoned) his
challenge to the registration requirement. The government portrays Mr.
Yelloweagle’s argument on appeal as follows:
Yelloweagle challenges the portion of § 2250 that relates to
federal offenders and urges this Court to consider it in isolation
from the surrounding statute. Indeed, he explicitly disavows a
constitutional challenge to the statute’s registration requirement
for these offenders and asks this Court to invalidate only its
ability to enforce the law against them.
Aplee. Br. at 34. In his reply brief, Mr. Yelloweagle does not respond to the
government’s waiver argument. Although he (belatedly) argues that § 16913 is
also invalid, nowhere does he argue that the government has mischaracterized his
initial appellate position.
We conclude that Mr. Yelloweagle has indeed waived his challenge to
§ 16913. There is nothing in Mr. Yelloweagle’s opening brief to suggest that he
intends to challenge the government’s authority to require him to register. Nor is
his attack on § 2250(a)(2)(A) structured in such a way that it implicates § 16913.
Rather than argue—as he did before the district court—that his prosecution under
§ 2250(a)(2)(A) is invalid because the registration requirement is invalid, Mr.
Yelloweagle simply contends that no provision of the Constitution authorizes
§ 2250(a)(2)(A). In these circumstances, Mr. Yelloweagle has waived any claim
that § 16913 is itself invalid. We cannot make arguments for him. See, e.g.,
-19-

Appellate Case: 09-1247 Document: 01018632336 Date Filed: 05/02/2011 Page: 20

Perry v. Woodward, 199 F.3d 1126, 1141 n.13 (10th Cir. 1999) (“This court . . .
will not craft a party’s arguments for him.”).
C.

The Necessary and Proper Clause Supports Congress’s Authority
to Enact § 2250(a)(2)(A)

Our conclusion above that Mr. Yelloweagle waived his challenge to
§ 16913 is only the first step of our analysis. The government argues that, if Mr.
Yelloweagle waived his challenge to § 16913, then § 2250(a)(2)(A) can be
sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause. Thus, the government contends
that Mr. Yelloweagle’s argument that Congress lacked the power to enact
§ 2250(a)(2)(A) must fail. For the reasons below, we agree.
1.

General Principles

The United States Constitution—in what is known as the Necessary and
Proper Clause—provides that “[t]he Congress shall have Power . . . To make all
Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the
foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the
Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” U.S.
Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 18. Early in our history, the Supreme Court—with Chief
Justice Marshall writing—held that this clause accords Congress “the right to
legislate on that vast mass of incidental powers which must be involved in the
constitution, if that instrument be not a splendid bauble.” McCulloch v.

-20-

Appellate Case: 09-1247 Document: 01018632336 Date Filed: 05/02/2011 Page: 21

Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 421 (1819). In a passage familiar to all
students of constitutional law, the court further explicated the Clause:
We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the government
are limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended. But we
think the sound construction of the constitution must allow to the
national legislature that discretion, with respect to the means by
which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution,
which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned
to it, in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be
legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all
means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that
end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and
spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.
Id. (emphasis added); see also United States v. Comstock, 130 S. Ct. 1949, 1956
(2010) (describing the italicized portion of the above-quoted text as “language
that has come to define the scope of the Necessary and Proper Clause”). “[T]he
Necessary and Proper Clause makes clear that the Constitution’s grants of specific
federal legislative authority are accompanied by broad power to enact laws that
are ‘convenient, or useful’ or ‘conducive’ to the authority’s ‘beneficial exercise.’”
Comstock, 130 S. Ct. at 1956 (quoting McCulloch, 17 U.S. at 413, 418).
As the Supreme Court recently stated: “[I]n determining whether the
Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress the legislative authority to enact a
particular federal statute, we look to see whether the statute constitutes a means
that is rationally related to the implementation of a constitutionally enumerated
power.” Id.; see also id. at 1962 (noting “the Constitution’s insistence that a

-21-

Appellate Case: 09-1247 Document: 01018632336 Date Filed: 05/02/2011 Page: 22

federal statute represent a rational means for implementing a constitutional grant
of legislative authority”); United States v. Plotts, 347 F.3d 873, 878 (10th Cir.
2003) (“At bottom, then, the Necessary and Proper Clause enables Congress to
enact laws, subject to other constitutional constraints, ‘that bear a rational
connection to any of its enumerated powers.’” (quoting United States v. Edgar,
304 F.3d 1320, 1326 (11th Cir. 2002))). “Chief Justice Marshall emphasized that
the word ‘necessary’ does not mean ‘absolutely necessary.’” Comstock, 130 S.
Ct. at 1956 (quoting McCulloch, 17 U.S. at 413–15); see also Plotts, 347 F.3d at
878 (“The Supreme Court long ago rejected the view that the Necessary and
Proper Clause demands that an Act of Congress be absolutely necessary to the
exercise of an enumerated power.” (quoting Jinks v. Richland Cnty., S.C., 538
U.S. 456, 462 (2003)) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
“Congress routinely exercises its authority to enact criminal laws in
furtherance of, for example, its enumerated powers to regulate interstate and
foreign commerce . . . .” Comstock, 130 S. Ct. at 1957; see id. at 1969 (Alito, J.,
concurring) (“The Necessary and Proper Clause provides the constitutional
authority for most federal criminal statutes. In other words, most federal criminal
statutes rest upon a congressional judgment that, in order to execute one or more
of the powers conferred on Congress, it is necessary and proper to criminalize
certain conduct . . . .”); McCulloch, 17 U.S. at 416 (“All admit, that the
government may, legitimately, punish any violation of its laws; and yet, this is
-22-

Appellate Case: 09-1247 Document: 01018632336 Date Filed: 05/02/2011 Page: 23

not among the enumerated powers of congress.”); Plotts, 347 F.3d at 878 (“The
[Supreme] Court has held ‘Congress may impose penalties in aid of the exercise
of any of its enumerated powers.’” (quoting Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v.
Adkins, 310 U.S. 381, 393 (1940))); see also United States v. Tom, 565 F.3d 497,
502 (8th Cir. 2009) (“That Congress has the authority under the Necessary and
Proper Clause to criminalize and punish certain activities as a means of
effectuating its enumerated powers is beyond dispute.”), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct.
3319 (2010). “Similarly, Congress, in order to help ensure the enforcement of
federal criminal laws enacted in furtherance of its enumerated powers,”
Comstock, 130 S. Ct. at 1958, can erect civil regulatory regimes rationally related
to effectuating a “constitutional grant of legislative authority,” id. at 1962, which
the enumerated powers provide. See id. at 1963 (“[F]rom the implied power to
punish we have further inferred both the power to imprison . . . and . . . the
federal civil-commitment power.” (citation omitted)); Plotts, 347 F.3d at 879 n.5
(“Congress has the power to impose nonpunitive sanctions for the violation of
criminal statutes.”).
In this regard, in Comstock, the Supreme Court expressly “reject[ed] [the
criminal defendants’] argument that the Necessary and Proper Clause permits no
more than a single step between an enumerated power and an Act of Congress.”
130 S. Ct. at 1964. The Court in Comstock was called upon to determine the
validity under the Necessary and Proper Clause of “[a] federal civil-commitment
-23-

Appellate Case: 09-1247 Document: 01018632336 Date Filed: 05/02/2011 Page: 24

statute [that] authorizes the Department of Justice to detain a mentally ill,
sexually dangerous federal prisoner beyond the date the prisoner would otherwise
be released.” Id. at 1954; see 18 U.S.C. § 4248. The Court concluded that the
federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 4248, “is reasonably adapted to Congress’ power to
act as a responsible federal custodian (a power that rests, in turn, upon federal
criminal statutes that legitimately seek to implement constitutionally enumerated
authority).” Comstock, 130 S. Ct. at 1961 (citations omitted) (internal quotation
marks omitted). The Court specifically concluded that “the links between § 4248
and an enumerated Article I power are not too attenuated.” Id. at 1963; see id. at
1964 (“Indeed even the dissent acknowledges that Congress has the implied
power to criminalize any conduct that might interfere with the exercise of an
enumerated power, and also the additional power to imprison people who violate
those (inferentially authorized) laws, and the additional power to provide for the
safe and reasonable management of those prisons, and the additional power to
regulate the prisoners’ behavior even after their release.”). We now apply these
principles to the circumstances before us.
2.

If § 16913 Is Assumed to be Valid, Then the Necessary and
Proper Clause Gives Congress the Authority to Enact
§ 2250(a)(2)(A)

On appeal the government contends that

-24-

Appellate Case: 09-1247 Document: 01018632336 Date Filed: 05/02/2011 Page: 25

where, as here, the issue is one of congressional power, the
power to enforce a regulation follows from the power to regulate
that activity in the first place. For example, because Congress
has power to enact the federal tax code, it necessarily has the
power to penalize failure to comply. Indeed, the power to
regulate would be toothless without the corresponding power of
enforcement. Thus, Yelloweagle’s argument is flawed. He does
not contest Congress’s power to require all sex offenders to
register under § 16913 . . . . Yet he suggests that somehow
Congress may not enforce that power against a subset of those
offenders (non-traveling federal offenders) under § 2250. If
Congress has the broader power to require registration, it follows
naturally that it has the narrower power to enforce it. And it
cannot be said that Congress’s constitutional reach extends to a
certain class of citizens (non-traveling federal offenders) for
regulation purposes but falls short for enforcement purposes.
Aplee. Br. at 35–36 (citations omitted).
The government’s logic is cogent and, under the factual and procedural
circumstances presented here, it leads us ineluctably to the conclusion that Mr.
Yelloweagle cannot prevail on his Commerce Clause challenge to
§ 2250(a)(2)(A). As we concluded in Part II.B, supra, Mr. Yelloweagle has
abandoned on appeal his Commerce Clause challenge to the registration regime of
§ 16913. Therefore, we may assume without deciding that Congress has the
authority under the Commerce Clause to require all sex offenders to register and
keep their registration current, including federal sex offenders who only travel
intrastate. Given that assumption, under the jurisprudence of the Necessary and
Proper Clause, it naturally follows that Congress can enact criminal statutes
calculated to enforce that registration scheme. See Comstock, 130 S. Ct. at 1957.
-25-

Appellate Case: 09-1247 Document: 01018632336 Date Filed: 05/02/2011 Page: 26

The nature of our inquiry is narrowed, then, to whether § 2250(a)(2)(A) can be
said to be “rationally related” to the enforcement of Congress’s sex offender
registration scheme embodied in § 16913. For reasons noted below, we answer in
the affirmative.
In material respects, this case is akin to our decision in Plotts. There, we
reviewed a constitutional challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d), which we called the
“DNA Act.” Plotts, 347 F.3d at 875. This statute required Mr. Plotts, as a
condition of his supervised release, “to cooperate in the collection of his DNA.”
Id. Mr. Plotts challenged the law, contending that it was invalid under the
Commerce Clause and thus was an impermissible “exercise of plenary police
power, a power which Congress lacks.” Id. at 877. We did not reach his
argument under the Commerce Clause. We observed that “the Commerce Clause
empowers Congress to criminalize the receipt of child pornography over the
Internet—the crime to which Mr. Plotts pleaded guilty.” Id. at 879 (citing United
States v. Kimler, 335 F.3d 1132, 1139 (10th Cir. 2003)). Further, we observed
that “pursuant to the Necessary and Proper Clause, Congress may fashion
penalties for the violation of valid federal laws.” Id. In this regard, we construed
the DNA Act to be a “civil sanction.” Id. at 878; see also id. at 879 n.5
(“Congress has the power to impose nonpunitive sanctions for the violation of
criminal statutes.”). Ultimately, we held that Congress was authorized to enact
the DNA Act as “a necessary and proper sanction to a valid criminal law” (i.e.,
-26-

Appellate Case: 09-1247 Document: 01018632336 Date Filed: 05/02/2011 Page: 27

the child pornography offense). Id. at 879; see also id. at 878 (“Congress has . . .
discretion as to what sanctions shall be imposed for the enforcement of the law
and this discretion is unlimited so long as the method of enforcement does not
impinge upon some other constitutional prohibition.” (quoting Rodgers v. United
States, 138 F.2d 992, 994–95 (6th Cir. 1943)) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Significantly, our Necessary and Proper Clause analysis in Plotts was
predicated on Congress’s undisputedly valid exercise of its Commerce Clause
power in enacting the Internet child pornography statute at issue. Because this
law was undisputedly valid under the Commerce Clause, it was unnecessary for
us to decide whether the DNA Act was independently viable as an exercise of
Congress’s Commerce Clause authority. The DNA Act could be upheld under the
Necessary and Proper Clause if it was rationally related to the “[criminal]
penalt[y] for the violation of [a] valid federal law[],” id. at 879—that is, as an
additional rationally related sanction for a violation of the child pornography law.
And, as noted, we decided that it could be upheld, specifically “conclud[ing] that
the DNA Act, if construed as a civil sanction, is necessary and proper to the
exercise of the Commerce Clause.” Id. Put another way, given that the child
pornography statute at issue in Plotts was “legitimately predicated on an
enumerated power” (i.e., the Commerce Clause), Comstock, 130 S. Ct. at 1964,
we only had to determine whether the DNA Act—a statute that was one more step
removed from the enumerated power—was rationally related to the effectuation of
-27-

Appellate Case: 09-1247 Document: 01018632336 Date Filed: 05/02/2011 Page: 28

that criminal statute and, thus, consonant with “the Constitution’s insistence that a
federal statute represent a rational means for implementing a constitutional grant
of legislative authority,” id. at 1962. We concluded in Plotts that the DNA Act
satisfied this rational-relation test.
As in Plotts, we have before the court an undisputedly valid exercise of
Congress’s Commerce Clause power—viz., the sex offender registration scheme
of § 16913. In Plotts, the statute’s validity was undisputed because we “ha[d]
already established,” as a matter of precedent, that Congress had the authority
under the Commerce Clause to criminalize the Internet child pornography offense
at issue. In the instant case, the statute’s validity is undisputed because on appeal
Mr. Yelloweagle has abandoned his Commerce Clause challenge to § 16913. This
abandonment leaves us free to assume without deciding that Congress could
validly enact § 16913 under its enumerated Commerce Clause power. Therefore,
for decisional purposes, we are similarly situated to the court in Plotts.
Specifically, we need not determine whether § 2250(a)(2)(A) would be
independently viable as an exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause authority. If
we are able to determine that the statute is rationally related to the enforcement of
the registration regime of § 16913, we may uphold § 2250(a)(2)(A) under the
Necessary and Proper Clause. As in Plotts, we conclude that we may uphold the
statute at issue—§ 2250(a)(2)(A)—under the Necessary and Proper Clause.

-28-

Appellate Case: 09-1247 Document: 01018632336 Date Filed: 05/02/2011 Page: 29

It seems beyond peradventure that the criminal enforcement provision of
§ 2250(a)(2)(A) is “rationally related or reasonably adapted to the effectuation”
of the sex offender registration regime of § 16913. United States v. Kebodeaux,
634 F.3d 293, 297 (5th Cir. 2011) (citing Comstock, 130 S. Ct. at 1956). Section
2250(a)(2)(A) “clearly was not enacted as a stand-alone provision, but rather as a
complement to [SORNA’s] other provisions.” Id. at 301 (Dennis, J., concurring);
see Carr, 130 S. Ct. at 2240 (noting that § 2250’s criminal enforcement provision
“is not a stand-alone response to the problem of missing sex offenders”);
Kebodeaux, 634 F.3d at 304 (Dennis, J. concurring) (noting that § 2250(a)(2)(A)
is “a necessary and integral part of the commerce-clause-based SORNA”); see
also United States v. Sanders, 622 F.3d 779, 783 (7th Cir. 2010) (“Imposing a
duty to register as a matter of federal law would do little to solve the problem of
sex offenders slipping through the cracks absent the enforcement mechanism
supplied by [§] 2250.”), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1033 (2011). In particular, in a
concurring opinion in Kebodeaux, Judge Dennis highlighted the relationship
between § 2250(a)(2)(A) and the registration regime of § 16913:
SORNA gave “the States primary responsibility for supervising
and ensuring compliance among state sex offenders.” Congress
did not delegate to the states, however, the additional
responsibility of prosecuting sex offenders convicted under
federal law who fail to update their registrations after in-state
residence changes. Rather, SORNA makes such an intra-state reregistration failure a federal offense amenable to prosecution by
the federal government. Section 2250(a)(2)(A) helps to make
-29-

Appellate Case: 09-1247 Document: 01018632336 Date Filed: 05/02/2011 Page: 30

SORNA’s regulation of interstate commerce effective by
obviating potential sources of interference or disruption of that
objective. For example, had Congress not criminalized federal
sex offenders’ undocumented, intra-state residence changes, there
would [be] no deterrence to their moving intra-state without reregistering. This would have caused disparate and delayed
enforcement of SORNA against federal sex offenders, allowing
them to establish residences in some states as apparent law
abiders, which would have made them difficult to monitor either
in-state or in interstate commerce.
Kebodeaux, 634 F.3d at 299 (footnote omitted) (quoting Carr, 130 S. Ct. at
2238). 3
Mr. Yelloweagle has marshaled no specific arguments to contradict this
analysis. To the contrary, at oral argument, counsel for Mr. Yelloweagle
acknowledged that it was “of course, correct” that the Necessary and Proper

3

Although explicitly acknowledging that § 2250(a)(2)(A) is “a
necessary an integral part of the commerce-clause-based SORNA,” Kebodeaux,
634 F.3d at 304 (Dennis, J., concurring), Judge Dennis’s analysis under the
Necessary and Proper Clause led him to focus on the extent to which
§ 2250(a)(2)(A) is “necessary and proper to make § 2250(a)(2)(B) effective as a
regulation of interstate commerce,” id. at 299. In particular, he noted:
I conclude that § 2250(a)(2)(A)’s application to intra-state
violations of SORNA by sex offenders convicted under federal
law is necessary and proper to, that is, rationally related and
reasonably adapted to, § 2250(a)’s other subsection,
§ 2250(a)(2)(B), which we have already upheld as a proper
exercise of the Commerce Clause power.
Id. at 304. The government in this case, however, has not advanced such an
argument. Therefore, we offer no view on whether any purported necessary-andproper nexus between § 2250(a)(2)(A) and (a)(2)(B) would be in itself sufficient to
uphold the constitutionality of § 2250(a)(2)(A).
-30-

Appellate Case: 09-1247 Document: 01018632336 Date Filed: 05/02/2011 Page: 31

Clause authorizes Congress to enact criminal penalties to punish violations of
other valid laws. Oral Argument at 5:50–5:55. Counsel did suggest that the
Necessary and Proper Clause might require a greater quantum of constitutional
authority when Congress seeks to enact a criminal, rather than civil, statute. See
id. at 6:12–6:32 (“[T]here is a particularly sharp division in the Constitution there
because the regulation and suppression of violent crime is an area traditionally
left to the states, not the federal government. . . . So I think that some part of my
argument would remain . . . .”). We understand counsel’s argument, but must
reject it. We are aware of no authority to support the idea that we should give the
Necessary and Proper Clause a stricter construction when reviewing Congress’s
enactment of criminal provisions.
In sum, Mr. Yelloweagle contends that Congress lacked the authority under
the Commerce Clause to enact § 2250(a)(2)(A). On appeal, Mr. Yelloweagle has
waived (i.e., abandoned) a similar Commerce Clause challenge to the sex offender
registration requirements of § 16913. Therefore, we may operate on the
assumption that § 16913 is a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the
Commerce Clause. Doing so, we conclude that Congress has the authority under
the Necessary and Proper Clause to enact § 2250(a)(2)(A) in order to criminally
enforce its validly enacted registration provision, § 16913. Thus, Mr.
Yelloweagle’s facial attack on § 2250(a)(2)(A) fails.

-31-

Appellate Case: 09-1247 Document: 01018632336 Date Filed: 05/02/2011 Page: 32

III.

CONCLUSION
The issue that Mr. Yelloweagle has asked us to consider is whether

Congress has the authority to enact 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a)(2)(A). In the
circumstances of this appeal, the answer to that question is clear: Because we
assume that 42 U.S.C. § 16913 is valid, the Necessary and Proper Clause
authorizes Congress to enact § 2250(a)(2)(A) in order to enforce § 16913.
Therefore, we AFFIRM Mr. Yelloweagle’s conviction.

-32-