US v. Ronald Snyder

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:13-cr-00048-JPB-JSK-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999589545].. [14-4472]

Appeal: 14-4472

Doc: 38

Filed: 05/26/2015

Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4472

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RONALD SNYDER, a/k/a Ronald McCarty,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins.
John Preston Bailey,
District Judge. (2:13-cr-00048-JPB-JSK-1)

Submitted:

May 11, 2015

Decided:

May 26, 2015

Before MOTZ, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded by unpublished
per curiam opinion.

Charles T. Berry, Fairmont, West Virginia, for Appellant.
William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney, Shawn Angus
Morgan, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4472

Doc: 38

Filed: 05/26/2015

Pg: 2 of 6

PER CURIAM:
Ronald Snyder appeals his sentence of twenty-four months
imprisonment and five years of supervised release following his
guilty

plea

Offender

to

failure

Registration

to

register

and

as

required

Notification

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a) (2012).

Act

by

the

Sex

(“SORNA”),

in

On appeal, counsel has

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), questioning whether venue in the Northern District of
West Virginia was improper and whether SORNA is impermissibly
vague as it applies to Snyder.
parties

agreed

that,

in

light

In supplemental briefs, the
of

a

clarifying

Sentencing

Guideline amendment enacted subsequent to Snyder’s sentencing,
the

sex-offender-related

special

conditions

release do not apply to Snyder’s offense.
follow,

we

affirm

in

part,

vacate

in

of

supervised

For the reasons that
part,

and

remand

for

further proceedings.
We review de novo a district court’s venue determination.
United States v. Jefferson, 674 F.3d 332, 364 (4th Cir. 2012).
Venue

lies

in

“committed.”
18.

the

state

and

district

where

the

offense

was

U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 3; Fed. R. Crim. P.

Where, as here, the criminal statute does not contain an

express

venue

provision,

the

court

must

determine

venue

by

considering “the nature of the crime alleged and the location of

2

Appeal: 14-4472

Doc: 38

Filed: 05/26/2015

Pg: 3 of 6

the act or acts constituting it.”
F.3d

302,

308

omitted).

(4th

Cir.

2000)

United States v. Bowens, 224
(internal

quotation

marks

A convicted sex offender’s act of interstate travel

both “serve[s] as a jurisdictional predicate for § 2250” and is
“the very conduct at which Congress took aim” in enacting the
statute.

Carr v. United States, 560 U.S. 438, 454 (2010).

Snyder’s

offense

necessarily

involved

more

than

one

district because it required interstate travel, beginning when
he moved from West Virginia to North Carolina, which gave rise
to his obligation to register in either state, and ending when
he failed to register in either state.
(2012).

42 U.S.C. § 16913(c)

Thus, venue in West Virginia was proper.

Snyder

also

argues,

for

the

first

time

on

appeal,

that

SORNA’s registration requirements are unconstitutionally vague
as applied to transient sex offenders.

We generally review a

defendant’s challenge to the constitutionality of a statute de
novo.

United States v. Bostic, 168 F.3d 718, 721 (4th Cir.

1999).

However, when the issue is not presented to the district

court, as is the case here, we review for plain error.

United

States v. Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 292 (4th Cir. 2012).

Snyder

fails

to

satisfy

therefore,
neither

is

not

ambiguous

his

burden

entitled
nor

under
to

vague,

the

relief.
and

3

our

plain-error
The
review

rule

statute
of

the

and,

here

is

record

Appeal: 14-4472

Doc: 38

Filed: 05/26/2015

Pg: 4 of 6

reveals that Snyder’s conduct clearly violated the registration
requirements.
We review for abuse of discretion special conditions of
supervised release.

United States v. Dotson, 324 F.3d 256, 259

(4th

In

Cir.

2003).

addition

to

the

mandatory

conditions

provided by the Guidelines, a district court may impose upon
supervised release other conditions that it deems appropriate,
“as long as that condition is ‘reasonably related’ to statutory
factors referred to in [18 U.S.C.] § 3583(d)(1).”

Id. at 260;

see also U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5D1.3(b) (2014).
Additionally, these other conditions must be consistent with the
Sentencing Commission’s policy statements.

Dotson, 324 F.3d at

260-61; USSG § 5D1.3(b).
At sentencing in June 2014, the district court, without
objection, imposed a five-year term of supervised release, along
with several sex-offender-related special conditions recommended
in the presentence report.

In November 2014, an amendment to

§ 5D1.2 became effective, stating that a SORNA violation is not
a sex offense.

USSG § 5D1.2 cmt. n.1 (2014).

We recently held

that this amendment was a clarifying, rather than substantive,
amendment.

United States v. Collins, 773 F.3d 25, 31-32 (4th

Cir. 2014), cert. denied, __ S. Ct. __, 2015 WL 1121544 (U.S.
Apr. 20, 2015).

“[C]larifying amendment[s] must be given effect

4

Appeal: 14-4472

Doc: 38

Filed: 05/26/2015

Pg: 5 of 6

at sentencing and on appeal, even when the sentencing court uses
an edition of the guidelines manual that predated adoption of
the

amendment.”

Id.

at

32

(internal

quotation

marks

and

citation omitted).
In this case, as in Collins, the district court did not
have the benefit of the Guidelines amendment at the time of
Snyder’s sentencing, which occurred more than four months before
the amendment became effective.
vacate

and

remand

for

“This Circuit’s practice is to

resentencing

when

Commission enacts a clarifying amendment.”
We

therefore

vacate

the

the

Sentencing

Id.

supervised

release

Snyder’s sentence and remand for resentencing.

portion

of

In accordance

with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and
have

found

no

other

meritorious

grounds

for

appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm all other aspects of the district court’s
judgment.
writing,

This court requires that counsel inform Snyder, in
of

the

right

to

petition

United States for further review.

the

Supreme

Court

of

the

If Snyder requests that a

petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for
leave to withdraw from representation.

Counsel’s motion must

state that a copy thereof was served on Snyder.

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

5

Appeal: 14-4472

Doc: 38

adequately

Filed: 05/26/2015

presented

in

the

Pg: 6 of 6

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART;
VACATED IN PART;
AND REMANDED

6