Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Public Defense Blogs -> Second Circuit Blog
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Public Defense
: Second Circuit BlogSex Offender Goes South, As Does His Defense
A jury convicted Van Buren of failing to comply with the registration requirements of SORNA after he moved from his hotel in Binghamton, New York, to his mother?s house in North Carolina without updating his New York registration or registering in North Carolina.
On appeal, he first raised a host of constitutional challenges, all of which were foreclosed by United States v. Guzman, an intervening decision. See Moving Violations, posted January 7, 2010.
He also claimed that the district court erred in its jury instructions about the scope of SORNA's registration requirements. The statutory scheme requires a convicted sex offender to register, and keep the registration current - including providing the address of his residence - in each jurisdiction where he resides, is employed or is a student. In addition, within three business days after each ?change? of residence, the offender must appear in person at an ?appropriate office? and inform it of all changes in his information.
In the district court, Van Buren claimed that his termination of his hotel residence in New York was not a ?change? in residence because he did not establish a new residence elsewhere. The government countered that leaving the hotel was by itself a sufficient ?change? to trigger SORNA. The district court agreed that terminating a residence with no intention of returning requires a sex offender to update his information, and instructed the jury accordingly.
Van Buren pursued this claim on appeal, without success. The circuit held that Van Buren?s terminating his residence in New York to travel to North Carolina with no intention of returning qualified as a ?change? in residence under any definition of the word ?change.? It was a ?change? in the sense of going from ?something to nothing? and it was also a change in the sense of ?going from something to something else.?
Moreover, regardless of the semantics, the circuit held that it was clear that SORNA covered Van Buren?s conduct. Indeed, its legislative history specifically notes that sex offenders? moving from one state to another presents the ?most significant enforcement issue in the sex offender program.? The statute is therefore not ambiguous such that the rule of lenity would apply.
Full post as published by Second Circuit Blog on March 21, 2010 (boomark / email).
Self Defense
It's legal to defend yourself and your family
Sex Offender Lists
Registries by State and County
South Carolina Firm
Recalls Frozen Meat and Poultry Products
CIA
Department of Defense Sued by Veterans
Ministry of Defense
$500,000 in damages in transgender humiliation suit.
The Ministry of Defense
$500,000 in damages in transgender humiliation suit.
Government Overbilling
Defense contractor to pay $8.9 million settlement in fraud lawsuit.

Sex offender assaulted, bullet shatters car
Plan would trim sex offender list
SD- Loopholes closed in sex-offender registry
SD - New Legislator Calls for Changes in Sex Offender Prosecution Rules
South Carolina School District Plans Sex Offender Checks on Volunteers
SD - Loopholes closed in sex-offender registry









