The requirements of SORNA apply to all sex offenders. All sex offenders must comply with all requirements of that Act, regardless of when the conviction of the offense for which registration is required occurred (including if the conviction occurred before the enactment of that Act), regardless of whether a jurisdiction in which registration is required has substantially implemented that Act's requirements or has implemented any particular requirement of that Act, and regardless of whether any particular requirement or class of sex offenders is mentioned in examples in this regulation or in other regulations or guidelines issued by the Attorney General.
Example 1 to § 72.3. A sex offender is federally convicted of aggravated sexual abuse under 18 U.S.C. 2241 in 1990 and is released following imprisonment in 2009. The sex offender is subject to the requirements of SORNA and could be held criminally liable under 18 U.S.C. 2250 for failing to register or keep the registration current in any jurisdiction in which the sex offender resides, is an employee, or is a student.
Example 2 to § 72.3. A sex offender is convicted by a state jurisdiction in 1997 for molesting a child and is released following imprisonment in 2000. The sex offender initially registers as required but relocates to another state in 2009 and fails to register in the new state of residence. The sex offender has violated the requirement under SORNA to register in any jurisdiction in which he resides, and could be held criminally liable under 18 U.S.C. 2250 for the violation because he traveled in interstate commerce.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
149
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 2007–2021 · leading case:
United States v. Gould, 568 F.3d 459 (4th Cir. 2009).
United States v. Gould, 568 F.3d 459 (4th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 20× “" 28 C.F.R. § 72.3 (2007); Applicability of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, 72 Fed.”
Carr v. United States, 560 U.S. 438 (2010).
· cites it 8× “2 There is a separate conflict among the Courts of Appeals as to when SORNA’s registration requirements became applicable to persons convicted of sex offenses prior to the statute’s enactment. Several Circuits, including the Seventh, have taken the position that the Act did not…”
United States v. Cain, 583 F.3d 408 (6th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 12× “See 28 C.F.R. § 72.3 . On March 28, 2007, based on the warrant Ohio had issued, Georgia authorities arrested Cain.”
United States v. Kebodeaux, 133 S. Ct. 2496 (2013).
· cites it 5× “§16913 (a), and which applies to offenders who, when SORNA became law, had al- ready completed their sentences, 28 CFR §72.3 . When Kebodeaux moved within Texas and failed to update his registration, the Federal Government prosecuted him under SORNA, and the District Court…”
Reynolds v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 975 (2012).
· cites it 4× “8897 (codified at 28 CFR §72.3 ). Subsequently, the Attorney General promulgated further rules, regulations, and speci- fications.”
United States v. Dean, 604 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 6× “28 C.F.R. § 72.3 (2007). In promulgating the rule, the Attorney General invoked the "good cause" exceptions of the Administrative Procedure Act at 5 U.”
United States v. DiTomasso, 621 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 2010).
· cites it 6× “" 28 C.F.R. § 72.3 . The courts of appeals have disagreed about the meaning and effect of this statutory/regulatory mosaic.”
United States v. Anthony Kebodeaux, 687 F.3d 232 (5th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 8× “§ 16913 (2006) (requiring a sex offender to register in each jurisdiction in which he resides and to update that registration); 28 C.F.R. § 72.3 (2007) (specifying that § 16913’s requirements apply to all sex offenders, “including sex offenders convicted of the offense for which…”
United States v. Ambert, 561 F.3d 1202 (11th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 3× “§ 16913 (d), the Attorney General enacted 28 C.F.R. § 72.3 , which applied SORNA registration requirements “to all sex offenders, including sex offenders convicted of the offense for which registration is required prior to the enactment of that Act.”
United States v. Guzman, 591 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2010).
· cites it 3× “at 614-15 (citing 28 C.F.R. § 72.3 and 72 Fed.Reg. 30,228 (May 30, 2007)).”
United States v. Lawrance, 548 F.3d 1329 (10th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 4× “See 28 C.F.R. § 72.3 (Feb. 28, 2007). It does not, as he alleges, increase the penalty for his original sex offense.”
United States v. Alexander Dejarnette, Jr., 741 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 2013).
· cites it 10× “See 28 C.F.R. § 72.3 (2011). The retroactivity regulation begins with the familiar refrain that “[t]he requirements of [SORNA] apply to all sex offenders,” including pre-Act offenders.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.