United States v. Jensen

278 F. App'x 548
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedMay 19, 2008
Docket07-5841
StatusUnpublished

This text of 278 F. App'x 548 (United States v. Jensen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth 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. Jensen, 278 F. App'x 548 (6th Cir. 2008).

Opinion

FORESTER, Senior District Judge.

Defendant Tina Jensen entered a plea of guilty to the charge of complicity to commit sexual assault in the second degree, in violation of KRS 510.120, KRS 502.020, and KRS 620.010, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 13, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Fort Campbell Division. She was subsequently sentenced to a period of six (6) months probation and a fine of $250. As a special condition of her supervised release, the district court ordered her to “comply with any sex offender registration laws of any state in which she resides, is employed, carries on a vocation, or is a student.” When ordered by her probation officer to register as a sex offender in Kentucky, Jensen objected, arguing that under Kentucky law an individual convicted of complicity to commit sexual abuse in the second degree is not required to register as a sex offender under Kentucky law. The district court rejected Jensen’s position and entered an order requiring her to register as a sex offender in Kentucky.

Jensen appeals the district court’s order. Because we conclude that the district court did not err in requiring Jensen to register as a sex offender in Kentucky, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

I.

On January 5, 2006, a federal grand jury in the Western District of Kentucky returned a two count indictment against Tina Jensen. Jensen subsequently entered a plea of not guilty to both counts. Then, on September 6, 2006, the grand jury returned a two-count superseding indictment against Jensen for criminal violations under the Assimilated Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 13. The Assimilated Crimes Act, or ACA, provides that in the absence of a governing federal statute, a person who commits a state crime on a federal enclave “shall be guilty of a like offense and subject to a like punishment.” 18 U.S.C. § 13(a).

Count 1 of the superseding indictment charges that on or about and between July 9, 2004 and August 31, 2004, at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, Jensen, having a legal duty pursuant to KRS 620.010 to prevent the offense of sexual abuse in the second degree (KRS 510.120) against her daughter, E.J., a person who was less than fourteen (14) years old, failed to make a proper effort to do so, in violation of KRS 502.020. Count 2 of the superseding indictment charges that on or between the same dates Jensen, a parent legally charged with the care of E.J., age 12 years, failed to exer *550 cise reasonable diligence in the control over E.J., and allowed E.J. to become neglected, dependent, or delinquent when Jensen provided cigarettes and alcohol for E.J. and an unsafe living condition, in violation of KRS 530.060.

Jensen ultimately pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to Count 1 of the superseding indictment charging her with complicity to commit sexual abuse in the second degree; Count 2 of the superseding indictment was subsequently dismissed. As part of her guilty plea, Jensen admitted that she resided at home with her then-husband, her 12-year old daughter E.J., and a 19-year old soldier. Jensen further admitted that she was aware that her daughter had become sexually involved with the soldier and that she failed to make a proper effort to intervene in order to stop the sexual activity.

At the sentencing hearing on December 6, 2006, Jensen was sentenced by United States Magistrate Judge W. David King to six months probation and a fine of $250. As a component of her probation and in addition to the standard conditions of supervision, the court also imposed the following special condition of supervision:

IF DETERMINED APPLICABLE: 14) The defendant shall comply with any sex offender registration laws of any state in which she resides, is employed, carries on a vocation, or is a student.

Upon commencing her term of probation, Jensen was ordered by her United States Probation Officer to register as a sex offender in Kentucky. Jensen, by counsel, objected to registering as a sex offender and requested a hearing on the issue. The magistrate judge conducted a hearing on January 10, 2007 and heard argument from both parties. At the conclusion of the hearing, the magistrate judge entered an order on January 22, 2007 rejecting Jensen’s position and requiring her to register as a sex offender in Kentucky.

On February 2, 2007, Jensen appealed the magistrate judge’s order to the district court. On June 29, 2007, United States District Judge Thomas B. Russell entered an opinion affirming the magistrate judge’s order and denying Jensen’s appeal. Jensen filed a timely notice of appeal with this Court.

II.

Because Jensen was convicted under the ACA of a “like offense,” she is subject to “like punishment” as that provided by state law. 18 U.S.C. § 13(a). Consequently, “state law fixes the range of punishment, but the Sentencing Guidelines determine the actual sentence within that range.” United States v. Marmolejo, 915 F.2d 981, 984 (5th Cir.1990); see also United States v. Garcia, 893 F.2d 250, 254 (10th Cir.1989) (same). The Sentencing Guidelines, including the provisions for supervised release, were made applicable to the ACA in 1990 by congressional amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 3551(a).

Generally, this Court reviews de novo the sentencing court’s interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines and statutes. United States v. Kaminski, 501 F.3d 655, 665 (6th Cir.2007); United States v. Corrado, 304 F.3d 593, 607 (6th Cir.2002). Whether or not a conviction for complicity to commit sexual abuse requires registration as a sex offender under Kentucky law is clearly a question of law which this Court must review de novo.

III.

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

Related

United States v. Gerard Gary Garcia
893 F.2d 250 (Tenth Circuit, 1989)
United States v. Antonio Marmolejo
915 F.2d 981 (Fifth Circuit, 1990)
Parks v. Commonwealth
192 S.W.3d 318 (Kentucky Supreme Court, 2006)
United States v. Kaminski
501 F.3d 655 (Sixth Circuit, 2007)
Doe v. Poritz
662 A.2d 367 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1995)
Wilson v. Commonwealth
601 S.W.2d 280 (Kentucky Supreme Court, 1980)
Commonwealth v. Caswell
614 S.W.2d 253 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1981)
Lane v. Commonwealth
956 S.W.2d 874 (Kentucky Supreme Court, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
278 F. App'x 548, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jensen-ca6-2008.