USA v. Salvador Contreras

Filing 511133871

USA v. Salvador Contreras

Doc. 511133871

Case: 09-50339

Document: 00511133871

Page: 1

Date Filed: 06/07/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-50339 S u m m a r y Calendar June 7, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

U N I T E D STATES OF AMERICA, P la in tiff-A p p e lle e v. S A L V A D O R CONTRERAS, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e lla n t

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Western District of Texas U S D C No. 3:08-CR-1696-1

B e fo r e WIENER, DeMOSS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* S a lv a d o r Contreras appeals his conviction and sentence for failure to r e g is t e r as a sex offender as required by the Sex Offender Registration and N o t if i c a t i o n Act (SORNA), 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). Following a bench trial, the d i s tr ic t court sentenced Contreras to six months of imprisonment and ten years o f supervised release. C o n tr e r a s contends that his conviction violates due process because no s ta te has implemented SORNA and thus registration under SORNA was
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-50339

Document: 00511133871 Page: 2 No. 09-50339

Date Filed: 06/07/2010

im p o s s ib le . SORNA's registration requirements for individual offenders took e ffe c t on the date of SORNA's enactment regardless whether any state had im p l e m e n t e d SORNA's administrative requirements. United States v. Heth, 596 F .3 d 255, 258-60 & n.3 (5th Cir. 2010). Because Texas had its own sex offender r e g is tr y , Contreras was not convicted of failing to do the impossible. See id. C o n t r e r a s asserts as well that there was insufficient evidence to establish t h a t he knowingly violated SORNA. To sustain a criminal conviction for a v io la t io n of § 2250, the Government had to prove that Contreras (1) was required t o register under SORNA, (2) traveled in interstate or foreign commerce, and (3 ) "knowingly fail[ed] to register or update a registration as required by [ S O R N A ] ." See § 2250. Contreras contends that the plain language of the s ta t u t e makes clear that the term "knowingly" applies not only to failure either t o register or update a registration generally, but also to the provisions of S O R N A specifically. Thus, the Government could not prove that he "knowingly" fa ile d to register. SORNA contains "`no language requiring specific intent or a w illf u l failure to register such that [the defendant] must know his failure to r e g is t e r violated federal law.'" United States v. Whaley, 577 F.3d 254, 262 & n.6 (5 th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Gould, 568 F.3d 459, 468 (4th Cir. 2 0 0 9 )). As the Government was not required to prove Contreras knew that he v io la te d SORNA and the evidence presented at trial supported a finding that C o n tr e r a s knowingly failed to register, his challenge to the sufficiency of the e v id e n c e is without merit. Contreras's arguments that Congress lacked authority to enact SORNA a n d that his lack of notice of the specific provisions of SORNA violates due p r o c e s s are foreclosed, as he concedes. See Whaley, 577 F.3d at 261-62. The ju d g m e n t of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2