Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Richardson

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

June 19, 2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JUSTIN ALLAN RICHARDSON, Defendant-Appellant

Argued and Submitted, San Francisco, California; April 16, 2012.

Resubmitted: June 11, 2014.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. D.C. No. 3:10-cr-00087-ECR-VPC-1. Edward C. Reed, Jr., Senior District Judge, Presiding. Submission Vacated May 4, 2012.

Dan C. Maloney (argued), Research & Writing Attorney, Ramon Acosta, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Renee L. Valladares, Federal Public Defender, Reno, Nevada, for Defendant-Appellant.

Elizabeth A. Olson (argued), Assistant United States Attorney, Robert L. Ellman, Appellate Chief, Daniel G. Bogden, United States Attorney, District of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before: Stephen Reinhardt and Mary H. Murguia, Circuit Judges, and David A. Ezra, District Judge.[*]

OPINION

Page 1144

PER CURIAM:

Justin Allan Richardson appeals his conviction and sentence for violating the registration requirements of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (" SORNA" ). He raises several constitutional challenges to SORNA and argues that the district court erred in calculating his criminal history. We affirm.[1]

BACKGROUND

In 1994, Richardson was convicted of lewd and lascivious acts with a child in a California state court and ordered to register as a sex offender. On July 21, 2010, a federal grand jury indicted Richardson for failing to register as a sex offender as required by SORNA. Richardson moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that SORNA is unconstitutional because it violates the non-delegation doctrine, the Tenth Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the Ex Post Facto Clause. The district court denied Richardson's motion, and he subsequently pled guilty to the single-count indictment without a plea agreement. However, Richardson objected to the Presentence Investigation Report's assessment of one criminal history point for a 2000 misdemeanor conviction that resulted in a sentence of time served. Richardson argued that he was not represented by counsel during that proceeding. The district court overruled his objection and sentenced him to twenty-seven months' imprisonment. Richardson appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

DISCUSSION

Richardson argues that SORNA is unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates the non-delegation doctrine, the Tenth Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the Ex Post ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.