USA v. Henry Knezek, Jr.

Filing 511091091

Download PDF
Case: 09-50438 Document: 00511091091 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/26/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED N o . 09-50438 S u m m a r y Calendar April 26, 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. H E N R Y CHARLES KNEZEK, JR., 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-3116-1 B e fo r e JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* D e fe n d a n t -A p p e lla n t Henry Charles Knezek, Jr., appeals his conviction a n d 48-month prison sentence for failure to register as a sex offender as required b y the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 18 U.S.C. § 2 2 5 0 ( a ) . Knezek contends that his conviction should be reversed because there w a s insufficient evidence to establish that he knowingly violated SORNA. He a ls o asserts that (1) his conviction violates due process because no state has im p l e m e n t e d SORNA, (2) Congress lacked the authority under the Commerce 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 09-50438 Document: 00511091091 Page: 2 No. 09-50438 Date Filed: 04/26/2010 C la u s e to enact SORNA, and (3) he was denied due process because he did not h a v e actual notice of SORNA's requirements. T o sustain a criminal conviction for a violation pursuant § 2250, the g o v e r n m e n t had to prove that Knezek (1) was required to register under S O R N A , (2) traveled in interstate or foreign commerce, and (3) "knowingly f a il[ e d ] to register or update a registration as required by [SORNA]." See § 2250. K n e z e k insists that the plain language of the statute makes clear that the term " k n o w in g ly " applies not only to failure either to register or update a registration, b u t also to the specific requirements of SORNA. He argues that because he was n o t notified of the specific provisions of SORNA, the government could not prove t h a t he "knowingly" failed to register. I n United States v. Whaley, 577 F.3d 254, 262 & n.6 (5th Cir. 2009), we r e je c te d a similar argument, noting that ignorance of the law is not a defense a n d that the statute contains "`no language requiring specific intent or willful fa ilu r e to register such that [the defendant] must know his failure to register v i o l a t e d federal law.'" Whaley, 577 F.3d at 262 & n.6 (5th Cir. 2009)(quoting U n ited States v. Gould, 568 F.3d 459, 468 (4th Cir. 2009)). As the government w a s not required to prove Knezek knew that he violated SORNA, and as the e v id e n c e presented at trial supported a finding that Knezek knowingly failed to r e g is te r , his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is without merit. We also reject Knezek's contention that, because SORNA has not been im p le m e n te d by any state, his conviction violates due process. See United States v . Heth, 596 F.3d 255, 258-60 & n.3 (5th Cir. 2010). Finally, as Knezek concedes, h is contention that Congress lacked authority to enact SORNA and that lack of n o tic e of SORNA violates due process are foreclosed. See Whaley, 577 F.3d at 2 6 1 -6 2 (5th Cir. 2009). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?