USA v. Billy Ross

Filing

USA v. Billy Ross

Doc. 0

Case: 09-50890

Document: 00511166897

Page: 1

Date Filed: 07/08/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-50890 S u m m a r y Calendar July 8, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA, P la in t if f -A p p e lle e v. B I L L Y RAY ROSS, 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. 3:09-CR-977-1

B e fo r e BENAVIDES, PRADO, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* B illy Ray Ross appeals from his conviction of failing to register as a sex o ffe n d e r , pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2550. H e argues in his appellant's brief that the interim regulations making the S ex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) retroactive violated the A d m in is tr a t iv e Procedure Act (APA) because the Attorney General failed to a llo w a comment period before promulgating the regulations. He concedes in his r e p ly brief that the Government is correct that his APA argument is unavailing
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 09-50890

Document: 00511166897 Page: 2 No. 09-50890

Date Filed: 07/08/2010

b e c a u s e the permanent regulations governing retroactivity apply to his case. Ross has abandoned the APA issue and we do not consider it. See Morin v. C a ir e , 77 F.3d 116, 120 n.6 (5th Cir. 1996). R o s s asserts that the Government failed to show that he knowingly failed t o register as a sex offender or update his registration because it failed to show t h a t he had knowledge of the requirements of SORNA. Ross's argument is fo r e c lo s e d . See United States v. Heth, 596 F.3d 255, 258 (5th Cir. 2010); United S ta te s v. Whaley, 577 F.3d 254, 262 n.6 (5th Cir. 2009). H e contends that SORNA is beyond Congress's power under the Commerce C la u s e . He argues that SORNA violates the Due Process Clause because no n o tic e of the statute's registration requirements is required for a violation of the s t a t u t e and because he was prosecuted before any state implemented SORNA. He concedes that his contentions are foreclosed, but he raises them to preserve t h e m for further review. Ross's Commerce Clause and Due Process Clause c o n t e n t io n s are foreclosed. See Heth, 596 F.3d at 259-60; Whaley, 577 F.3d at 2 5 8 -6 2 . A F F IR M E D .

2