USA v. Angel Santiago

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Angel Santiago. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam.

Case: 14-13351

Date Filed: 01/05/2015

Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-13351
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:14-cr-00015-RH-CAS-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANGEL SANTIAGO,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(January 5, 2015)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JORDAN and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Angel Santiago, a former correctional officer, appeals his sentence for
sexually abusing a female ward of a federal prison. 18 U.S.C. § 2243(b). Santiago

Case: 14-13351

Date Filed: 01/05/2015

Page: 2 of 3

argues that the district court violated his right to substantive due process when it
ordered him to register as a sex offender in compliance with the Sex Offender
Registration and Notification Act as a special condition of his supervised release.
Santiago argues that the mandatory registration requirement of the Act is
unconstitutional as applied to him whether the statute is subject to intermediate
scrutiny or rational basis review. We affirm.
We review the application of the Act to Santiago under the rational basis
standard. Santiago argues that greater scrutiny is warranted because the registration
requirement affects his prospects for housing, employment, and volunteer work,
but we rejected a similar “broad framing of rights” by the defendant in Doe v.
Moore, 410 F.3d 1337, 1343 (11th Cir. 2005). Santiago instead asserts a right to
refuse to register and to prevent publication of his sex offender status. Id. at 1344;
United States v. Ambert, 561 F.3d 1202, 1209 (11th Cir. 2009). Because “a state’s
publication of truthful information that is already available to the public does not
infringe the fundamental constitutional rights of liberty and privacy,” we examine
the statute under rational basis review. Moore, 410 F.3d at 1345.
The Act is constitutional as applied to Santiago. To survive review under the
rational basis standard, the registration requirement has to be rationally related to a
legitimate government interest. Id. The federal government has a legitimate interest
in protecting its inmates from being sexually abused by their prison guards.
2

Case: 14-13351

Date Filed: 01/05/2015

Page: 3 of 3

Santiago argues that his relationship with the inmate was consensual and loving,
but the Act applies logically to “consensual sexual conduct” to thwart any person
in “custodial authority” from exploiting his power over an inmate. 42 U.S.C.
§ 16911(5)(C). Santiago also argues that there is no evidence that he will
recidivate, but whether a person subject to the registration requirement is
“dangerous []or likely to be a repeat offender, is of no moment under [the Act],
because the reporting requirements . . . turn on the . . . conviction alone.” Ambert,
561 F.3d at 1208 (discussing Connecticut Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1,
7–8, 123 S. Ct. 1160, 1164–65 (2003)). Santiago complains about the severe
limitations created by the sex offender law in his state of residence, but we will not
consider an argument that the district court refused to consider and that Santiago
told the district court that he was “not challenging.”
We AFFIRM Santiago’s sentence.

3