United States v. Henry Standing Elk, Jr.

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Henry Standing Elk, Jr.

581 F. App'x 649

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 27, 2014

Docket11-30323

StatusUnpublished

This text of 581 F. App'x 649 (United States v. Henry Standing Elk, Jr.) 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. Henry Standing Elk, Jr., 581 F. App'x 649 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Henry Thomas Standing Elk, Jr., appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction for failure to register as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Standing Elk first argues that the district court should have dismissed the indictment because Montana had not implemented SORNA at the time of his offense. This argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Elk Shoulder, 738 F.3d 948, 954-55 (9th Cir.2013), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1920, 188 L.Ed.2d 944 (2014) (enforcement of SORNA is not dependent on a state’s implementation of the administrative portion of SORNA); United States v. Elkins, 683 F.3d 1039, 1046 (9th Cir.2012) (same).

Standing Elk next argues that Congress lacked authority under the Commerce Clause to require him to register. This argument is also foreclosed. See United States v. Kebodeaux, — U.S.-,-, 133 S.Ct. 2496, 2500, 186 L.Ed.2d 540 (2013) (concluding that “the Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress adequate power to enact SORNA and to apply it” to a defendant convicted of a federal sex crime who was subject to federal sex offender registration requirements at the ^ of S0RNA>s enactment in 2006); Elk Shoulder, 738 F.3d at 959 (same).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Henry Thomas Standing Elk, Jr., appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction for failure to register as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Standing Elk first argues that the district court should have dismissed the indictment because Montana had not implemented SORNA at the time of his offense. This argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Elk Shoulder, 738 F.3d 948, 954-55 (9th Cir.2013), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1920, 188 L.Ed.2d 944 (2014) (enforcement of SORNA is not dependent on a state’s implementation of the administrative portion of SORNA); United States v. Elkins, 683 F.3d 1039, 1046 (9th Cir.2012) (same).

Standing Elk next argues that Congress lacked authority under the Commerce Clause to require him to register. This argument is also foreclosed. See United States v. Kebodeaux, — U.S.-,-, 133 S.Ct. 2496, 2500, 186 L.Ed.2d 540 (2013) (concluding that “the Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress adequate power to enact SORNA and to apply it” to a defendant convicted of a federal sex crime who was subject to federal sex offender registration requirements at the ^ of S0RNA>s enactment in 2006); Elk Shoulder, 738 F.3d at 959 (same).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

581 F. App'x 649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-henry-standing-elk-jr-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack