42 U.S.C. § 16924
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 38
cases, 2008–2017 · leading case: United States v. Gould, 568 F.3d 459 (4th Cir. 2009).
United States v. Gould, 568 F.3d 459 (4th Cir. 2009). “Such reading would render meaningless the provision in SORNA [at 42 U.S.C. § 16924 ] that clearly gives states until at least July 2009 to make this choice and comply with the Act.”
Reynolds v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 975 (2012). “42 U. S. C. §16924 . These same considerations might have warranted dif- ferent federal registration treatment of different catego- ries of pre-Act offenders.”
United States v. Billy Reynolds, 710 F.3d 498 (3rd Cir. 2013). “SORNA §§ 124(a), 129(b); 42 U.S.C. § 16924 . Three years is hardly the deadline of mere days we found to be adequate for good cause in Schweiker.”
United States v. Felts, 674 F.3d 599 (6th Cir. 2012). “See 42 U.S.C. § 16924 (a)(1)-(2) (“Each jurisdic *603 tion shall implement this title before the later of 3 years after the date of the enactment of this Act [enacted July 27, 2006]”).”
United States v. George, 625 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2010). “42 U.S.C. § 16924 (a). George, however, misconstrues the scope and effect of SORNA’s implementation provision.”
United States v. Dean, 604 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2010). “42 U.S.C. § 16924 . The Attorney General granted the first one-year extension on May 26, 2009.”
United States v. Heth, 596 F.3d 255 (5th Cir. 2010). “SORNA imposes a separate and distinct requirement on the states to implement SORNA-compliant sex offender registries within a specified time after the Act’s enactment, 42 U.S.C. § 16924 , or suffer the loss of a portion of their federal funding, id.”
United States v. Anthony Ross, 848 F.3d 1129 (D.C. Cir. 2017). “42 U.S.C. § 16924 ; see also SORNA Extensions Granted, U.”
United States v. White, 782 F.3d 1118 (10th Cir. 2015). “42 U.S.C. §§ 16924 , 16925(a). Mr. White does not claim Congress exceeded its spending power.”
United States v. Johnson, 632 F.3d 912 (5th Cir. 2011). “42 U.S.C. § 16924 . 8 . See, e.g., United States v.”
United States v. Valverde, 628 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2010). “Whereas states were afforded up to five years to implement SORNA, 42 U.S.C. § 16924 (a), (b), our court has enforced the APA’s proce *1167 dural requirements under the Clean Air Act in circumstances in which states were given less than one year to draft implementation plans…”
United States v. George, 579 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2009). “Whether an applicable state’s failure to implement SORNA precludes a federal prosecution for failure to register as a sex offender in that state is a matter of first impression within our circuit.”
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.