United States v. George

672 F.3d 1126, 2012 WL 718297, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4734
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMarch 7, 2012
Docket08-30339
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 672 F.3d 1126 (United States v. George) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. George, 672 F.3d 1126, 2012 WL 718297, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4734 (9th Cir. 2012).

Opinion

ORDER

Phillip Williams George was charged with, and convicted of, failing on September 27, 2007 to register as required under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2250 (“SORNA”). The grand jury charged that George had been convicted in 2003 of sexual abuse of a minor on an Indian Reservation in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2243(A) and 1153, and had subsequently traveled in interstate commerce and failed to register as required by SORNA. We affirmed his conviction. United States v. George, 625 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir.2010).

Thereafter, George filed a petition for rehearing en banc and a motion to dismiss the indictment. The motion to dismiss was based on our opinion in United States v. Valverde, 628 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir.2010), in which we held that the Attorney General’s February 28, 2007 interim rule applying SORNA to sex offenders who were convicted before SORNA’s enactment was invalid and that SORNA did not become applicable to such individuals until August 1, 2008. Id. at 1160. The motion to dismiss was held in abeyance pending the Government’s petition for a writ of certiorari from Valverde.

The Supreme Court has now denied the Government’s petition from Valverde. Accordingly, as George was charged with violating SORNA on September 27, 2007, at a time when we have determined SORNA was not applicable to persons such as George, his motion to dismiss must be granted.

We hereby grant the motion to dismiss, vacate our prior opinion, and remand this matter to the district court with directions to dismiss the indictment against George. This action renders the petition for rehearing en banc moot.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Pedro Cabrera-Gutierrez
718 F.3d 873 (Ninth Circuit, 2013)
United States v. Cabrera-Gutierrez
756 F.3d 1125 (Ninth Circuit, 2013)
United States v. Torrance
72 M.J. 607 (Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, 2013)
United States v. Lott
912 F. Supp. 2d 146 (D. Vermont, 2012)
United States v. Mark Steven Elk Shoulder
696 F.3d 922 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
United States v. Shoulder
738 F.3d 948 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
United States v. Anthony Kebodeaux
687 F.3d 232 (Fifth Circuit, 2012)
United States v. Coleman
675 F.3d 615 (Sixth Circuit, 2012)
United States v. Joe Reyes, Jr.
472 F. App'x 521 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
672 F.3d 1126, 2012 WL 718297, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4734, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-george-ca9-2012.