42 U.S.C. § 16901
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 366
cases (30 in the last 5 years), 2007–2026 · leading case: United States v. Hatcher, 560 F.3d 222 (4th Cir. 2009).
United States v. Hatcher, 560 F.3d 222 (4th Cir. 2009). “" 42 U.S.C.A. § 16901 (West 2008). To that end, jurisdictions must "maintain a jurisdiction-wide *225 sex offender registry" that complies with the standards set out by SORNA.”
Reynolds v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 975 (2012). “590 , 42 U. S. C. §16901 et seq. (2006 ed. and Supp.”
United States v. Gould, 568 F.3d 459 (4th Cir. 2009). “587 , 590-611 (2006) (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 16901 et seq. and 18 U.S.C. § 2250 ), for failing to register in Maryland as a sex offender when Maryland had not yet implemented SORNA's enhanced registration requirements.”
United States v. Hinckley, 550 F.3d 926 (10th Cir. 2008). “Reading subsection (d) to exclude all previously convicted sex offenders from SORNA's requirements would, as the Interim Rule explained, exempt "virtually the entire existing sex offender population.”
United States v. DiTomasso, 621 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 2010). “See 42 U.S.C. § 16901 (stating that Congress sought to "establish[] a comprehensive national system for the registration of [sex] offenders"); see also May, 535 F.”
United States v. Fuller, 627 F.3d 499 (2d Cir. 2010). “§ 2250 , the criminal enforcement provision of the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act ("SORNA" or the "Act"), 42 U.S.C. § 16901 et seq. This provision "established a federal criminal offense covering, inter alia, any person who (1) `is required to register…”
United States v. Cain, 583 F.3d 408 (6th Cir. 2009). “This would thwart the legislative objective of "protect[ing] the public from sex offenders and offenders against children" by establishing "a comprehensive national system for the registration of those offenders," [ 42 U.S.C. § 16901 ], because a substantial class of sex…”
United States v. Kebodeaux, 133 S. Ct. 2496 (2013). “590 , 42 U. S. C. §16901 et seq., a federal statute that requires those con- victed of federal sex offenses to register in the States where they live, study, and work.”
State v. Petersen-Beard, 377 P.3d 1127 (Kan. 2016). “2013) (using Mendoza- Martinez factors to determine federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 U.S.C. § 16901 et seq. (2012), is nonpunitive for purposes of the Eighth Amendment); Myrie v.”
United States v. Anthony Ross, 848 F.3d 1129 (D.C. Cir. 2017). “587 , 590 (2006), 42 U.S.C. § 16901 et seq.; 18 U.S.C. § 2250 (a).”
United States v. Nazario Gonzalez-Medina, 757 F.3d 425 (5th Cir. 2014). “09 for having sexual intercourse with a child age sixteen or older does not qualify as a “sex offense” within the meaning of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 16901 et seq. Gonzalez-Medina further contends that SORNA’s registration…”
United States v. Juv. Male, 670 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2012). “OPINION WARDLAW, Circuit Judge: Three juvenile defendants, each of whom is a member of an Indian Tribe and who pleaded true to a charge of aggravated sexual abuse with children, appeal their conditions of probation or supervision requiring registration under the Sex Offender…”
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.