United States v. Huls

353 F. App'x 176
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
DecidedDecember 2, 2009
Docket09-8046
StatusUnpublished

This text of 353 F. App'x 176 (United States v. Huls) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth 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. Huls, 353 F. App'x 176 (10th Cir. 2009).

Opinion

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

MONROE G. McKAY, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined *177 unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(f).

Defendant entered a conditional plea of guilty to one count of failing to register as a sex offender and was sentenced to twelve months plus one day of imprisonment. This conviction arose from his failure to register as a sex offender in Wyoming when he moved there from Iowa, where he had been convicted of lascivious conduct with a minor in January 2008. On appeal, he argues that his prosecution violated the Due Process and Commerce Clauses as well as the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.

As Defendant acknowledges, his due process and commerce clause arguments are foreclosed by binding Tenth Circuit precedent. See United States v. Lawrance, 548 F.3d 1329 (10th Cir.2008); United States v. Hinckley, 550 F.3d 926 (10th Cir.2008). As for his argument that the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act violates the Tenth Amendment, we agree with the government that Defendant lacks standing as an individual to pursue this claim. See United States v. Parker, 362 F.3d 1279, 1284-85 (10th Cir.2004); United States v. Hacker, 565 F.3d 522, 526-27 (8th Cir.2009). We accordingly AFFIRM the conviction and sentence.

*

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the *177 case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

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

Related

United States v. Parker
362 F.3d 1279 (Tenth Circuit, 2004)
United States v. Lawrance
548 F.3d 1329 (Tenth Circuit, 2008)
United States v. Hinckley
550 F.3d 926 (Tenth Circuit, 2008)
United States v. Hacker
565 F.3d 522 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
353 F. App'x 176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-huls-ca10-2009.