PER CURIAM:

The Appellants, John Does One through Seven, are registered sex offenders who appeal the dismissal for failure to state a claim of their challenges to the Texas Sex Offender Registration Program. We AFFIRM.

I. Background

The Texas Sex Offender Registration Program is codified at Chapter 62 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Its registration requirements apply retroactively to all persons with a “reportable conviction or adjudication occurring on or after September 1, 1970,” for several enumerated sex offenses. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. arts. 62.001(5), .002(a).

Chapter 62 imposes various requirements on registrants. A few are especially relevant to this case. Most registrants are assigned a “risk level” of “one (low),” “two (moderate),” or “three (high)” using an “objective point system.” Id. arts. 62.007, .053(a), (c). The “risk assessment review committee,” a court, or a state corrections agency may override a risk level only if it believes that the assigned level does not accurately predict the registrant’s risk to the community. Id. art. 62.007(d). Registrants must report in person at varying intervals depending on their offenses to verify their information. Id. arts. 62.058(a), .202. A registrant that intends to move, whether within or outside the state, must report in person within seven days before and after moving. Id. art. 62.055(a). The statute also prohibits registrants from living on the campus of an institution of higher education unless they are low-risk and the institution assents. Id. art. 62.064. The duty to register generally lasts for ten years after specified events of adjudication, but certain serious offenses can lead to lifetime registration. Id. art. 62.101.

The Does are men listed in the Texas sex-offender registry because of convictions that occurred before 2017, when Chapter 62 was last amended. They filed suit in the Northern District of Texas against Greg Abbott, Governor of Texas, and Colonel Steven McCraw, Director of the Texas Department of Public Safety. 1 The Does challenged Chapter 62 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on several constitutional grounds. 2 The district court dismissed all the Does’ claims with prejudice under both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of standing to bring the claims against Abbott and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Does #1–7 v. Abbott, 345 F.

1The Does moved for class-action certification for seven classes, but the district court denied the motion without prejudice for being premature.

2These were the Due Process Clause, First Amendment, Equal Protection Clause, Ex Post Facto Clause, Eighth Amendment, Double Jeopardy Clause, and Contracts Clause.

Supp. 3d 763, 784 (N.D. Tex. 2018).

The Does timely appealed challenging only the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of four of their facial challenges: 3 that Chapter 62 violates (1) the Due Process Clause by classifying sex offenders into three tiers of present dangerousness with insufficient procedural due process, (2) the Ex Post Facto Clause by imposing additional punishment for offenses committed before the 2017 amendments to Chapter 62, (3) the Eighth Amendment by imposing “excessive and arbitrary” punishment, and (4) the Double Jeopardy Clause by imposing additional punishment after sentencing requirements have been completed.

II. Standard of Review

“We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), accepting all well-pleaded facts as true and viewing those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Sullivan v. Leor Energy, LLC, 600 F.3d 542, 546 (5th Cir. 2010). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)).

III. Discussion

We have previously held that constitutional challenges to Chapter 62 on ex post facto, Eighth Amendment, due process, and other similar grounds either are frivolous or fail to state a plausible claim. Procedural due process challenges fail because conviction of a sex offense entails all requisite process for the state to impose sex-offender conditions. ^[4] Conn. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Doe (CDPS), 538 U.S. 1, 6–8 (2003); Meza v. Livingston, 607 F.3d 392, 401 (5th Cir. 2010). Ex post facto, Eighth Amendment, and double jeopardy challenges do not cross the minimum pleading threshold because Chapter 62 is nonpunitive. ^[5] None of the arguments in this case steer us in a different direction.

A. Procedural Due Process Claims

The district court dismissed the Does’ procedural due process claim, citing two unpublished opinions of our court. Abbott, 345 F. Supp. 3d at 777– 78 (citing Hollier v. Watson, 605 F. App’x 255, 258 n.12 (5th Cir. 2015) (per curiam); King v. McCraw, 559 F. App’x 278, 283 (5th Cir. 2014) (per curiam)). These two opinions relied on Meza v. Livingston, in which we held, “When an individual is convicted of a sex offense, no further process is due before imposing sex offender conditions.” 607 F.3d at 401 (citing CDPS, 538 U.S. at[*~310–312] 7–8). Because the Does stated in their complaint that Chapter 62’s “[t]ier classifications are based solely on the offense(s) of conviction,” the district court held that the Does “show[ed] that they have already been afforded all that due process requires.” Abbott, 345 F. Supp. 3d at 778.

When a state interferes with a liberty interest, “the procedures attendant upon that deprivation [must be] constitutionally sufficient.” Ky. Dep’t of Corr. v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 460 (1989). Even assuming for the sake of argument that a convicted sex offender has a liberty interest in being free from registration as such, 6 it is settled that conviction or similar adjudication of a sex offense supplies sufficient due process for the imposition of sex offender conditions, including registration. See CDPS, 538 U.S. at 6–8; Meza, 607 F.3d at 401. “The individual convicted of a sex crime in a prior adversarial setting, whether as the result of a bench trial, jury trial, or plea agreement, has received the minimum protections required by due process.” Meza, 607 F.3d at 401 (internal quotation marks omitted). Therefore, when a registry’s requirements “turn on an offender’s conviction alone—a fact that a convicted offender has already had a procedurally safeguarded opportunity to contest”—persons convicted of sexual offenses are owed no additional process. ^[7] CDPS, 538 U.S. at 7–8; see Meza, 607 F.3d at 401.

The Does argue that the classification of present risk provided for in Chapter 62 compels additional process. But they stated in their complaint to

6In Meza, we held that a person not convicted of a sexual offense has “a liberty interest in being free from sex offender registration and therapy.” 607 F.3d at 401.

the district court that the “classifications are based solely on the offense(s) of conviction,” and they did not argue otherwise in district court. ^[8] They have therefore waived any argument that risk classifications are not based solely on the fact of conviction. See N. Alamo Water Supply Corp. v. City of San Juan, 90 F.3d 910, 916 (5th Cir. 1996) (“We will not consider an issue that a party fails to raise in the district court, absent extraordinary circumstances.”). In light of this waiver, we consider only the arguments before the district court on these issues and, based upon those arguments, hold that the Does have been afforded enough due process to be placed under Chapter 62’s strictures, including risk-level designation. CDPS, 538 U.S. at 6–8; Meza, 607 F.3d at 401.

We also reject the Does’ contention that Chapter 62 fails the stigma-plus test from Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976). To show a due process violation under this theory, “a section 1983 plaintiff [must] show stigma plus an infringement of some other interest.” Blackburn v. City of Marshall, 42 F.3d 925, 935–36 (5th Cir. 1995). “[T]he infliction of a stigma on a person’s reputation by a state official, without more, does not infringe upon a protected liberty interest.” Id. (citing Paul, 424 U.S. at 710–11). Instead, “we have found sufficient stigma only where a state actor has made concrete, false assertions of wrongdoing on the part of the plaintiff.” Blackburn, 42 F.3d at 936. When a sex offender is required to register or is assigned a risk level, there is no false[*~312–314] assertion of fact, and thus there is no stigma. See Ex parte Robinson, 80 S.W.3d 709, 714 (Tex. App—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002), aff’d, 116 S.W.3d 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).

As for the infringement component, “[n]either harm to reputation nor the consequent impairment of future employment opportunities are constitutionally cognizable injuries.” Vander Zee v. Reno, 73 F.3d 1365, 1369 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 233–35 (1991)). The Does identify no direct infringement on the part of the state, but only secondary harms resulting from their placement on the registry, such as housing and lending hardships. They have therefore failed to show a due process violation under the stigma-plus test.

Because the Does fail to state a plausible due process claim, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of that claim.

B. Ex Post Facto, Eighth Amendment, and Double Jeopardy Claims

The district court addressed the Does’ ex post facto, Eighth Amendment, and double jeopardy claims collectively because their plausibility depended upon the threshold question of “whether Chapter 62’s scheme is punitive in nature.” Abbott, 345 F. Supp. 3d at 774. Relying on Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003), in which the Supreme Court found the Alaska sex-offender registration statute to be nonpunitive, the district court held that Chapter 62 is also nonpunitive, meaning the Does’ claims could not meet the pleading threshold. Abbott, 345 F. Supp. 3d at 775–77 (citing Smith, 538 U.S. at 92, 97–106). The district court also cited three of our unpublished opinions that reached the same conclusion. Id. at 776 (citing King, 559 F. App’x at 281; Hall v. Att’y Gen. of Tex., 266 F. App’x 355 (5th Cir. 2008) (per curiam); Herron v. Cockrell, 78 F. App’x 429 (5th Cir. 2003) (per curiam)).

A statute can violate the Ex Post Facto Clause, the Eighth Amendment, or the Double Jeopardy Clause only if the statute is punitive. See Smith,[*~313–315] 538 U.S. at 92–93, 96–97. 9 Courts use an intents–effects test to make that determination: “If the intention of the legislature was to impose punishment, that ends the inquiry”; but if the law was not intended to be punitive, the question becomes whether it is “so punitive either in purpose or effect as to negate the State’s intention to deem it civil.” Id. at 92 (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 361 (1997)). “[O]nly the clearest proof will suffice to override legislative intent and transform what has been denominated a civil remedy into a criminal penalty.” Smith, 538 U.S. at 92 (internal quotation marks omitted).

The Supreme Court has identified five non-dispositive factors, taken from Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963), 10 that are especially apt for determining whether a sex-offender registry is punitive:

whether, in its necessary operation, the regulatory scheme: [1] has been regarded in our history and traditions as a punishment; [2] imposes an affirmative disability or restraint; [3] promotes the traditional aims of punishment; [4] has a rational connection to a nonpunitive purpose; or [5] is excessive with respect to this purpose.

Smith, 538 U.S. at 97. “[A] most significant factor” is whether the law has a “rational connection to a nonpunitive purpose.” Id. at 102 (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted).

There is no question that Chapter 62 was not intended to be punitive. But the Does argue that its “cumulative effects . . . , retroactively imposed, qualify as punishment.” The district court concluded that “[a]lthough . . . some of Chapter 62’s requirements are more burdensome than the Alaska statute in Smith v. Doe, they do not rise to the level of harshness to constitute punishment.” Abbott, 345 F. Supp. 3d at 776. We agree. Smith suggests that sex-offender registry statutes are generally not punitive. See 538 U.S. at 105. On several occasions, we have extended that holding to Chapter 62 specifically. ^[11] See King, 559 F. App’x at 281–82; Hayes v. Texas, 370 F. App’x 508, 509 (5th Cir. 2010) (per curiam); Hall, 266 F. App’x at 356; Herron, 78 F. App’x at 430.

The Does rely heavily on a Sixth Circuit opinion that found the Michigan sex-offender registry to be punitive. See Does #1–5 v. Snyder, 834 F.3d 696, 705 (6th Cir. 2016). But they identify no feature of Texas’s scheme, which does not share the most burdensome features of Michigan’s, 12 that would compel a[*~314–315] departure from Smith or our prior decisions. Even if the Texas statute is harsher than the Alaska statute considered in Smith, and even if the Does are correct that sex-offender registries have questionable efficacy, Chapter 62 still advances the nonpunitive public purpose of defending public safety. See Smith, 528 U.S. at 103. “A statute is not deemed punitive simply because it lacks a close or perfect fit with the nonpunitive aims it seeks to advance.” Id. We will not re-weigh the Smith factors here but instead defer to the analysis of the district court and our prior panels.

Because Chapter 62 is not punitive, we affirm the dismissal of the Does’ ex post facto, Eighth Amendment, and double jeopardy claims.

AFFIRMED.

Additionally, the Michigan statute at issue in Snyder had a stricter in-person reporting requirement than Chapter 62’s. Compare MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. § 28.725 (requiring registrants to report in person “immediately” after various triggering events), with TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 62.055(a) (requiring registrants to report changes of address in person within seven days).