United States v. Roberson , 752 F.3d 517 ( 2014 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 13-1925
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
JAMES ROBERSON,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Michael A. Ponsor, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Lynch, Chief Judge,
Torruella and Howard, Circuit Judges.
Thomas J. O'Connor. Jr. for appellant.
Alex J. Grant, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom
Carmen M. Ortiz, United States Attorney, was on brief, for
appellee.
May 21, 2014
LYNCH, Chief Judge. This case addresses an important
question of interpretation of first impression in the federal
courts of appeals. Defendant James Roberson appeals from a
district court denial of his motion to dismiss and from his
criminal conviction for his failure to register as a sex offender
under SORNA, the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act.
18 U.S.C. § 2250.
At the time of his federal indictment in July 2012,
Roberson stood convicted, in 1998, of the Massachusetts crime of
indecent assault and battery on a child under the age of 14. Mass.
Gen. Laws ch. 265, § 13B. He did not appeal from that conviction;
nor did he ever register as a sex offender at any time between 2010
and 2012, though he had been notified of his obligation to do so.
Four months after his federal SORNA indictment, on
November 16, Roberson moved to withdraw his guilty plea to the sex
crime in the state court. Roberson did not and does not allege
that he was innocent of the indecent assault. But he did allege
that his guilty plea had entered after a constitutionally defective
procedure. The local prosecutor did not oppose the motion because
the plea judge had utilized incomplete and inadequate plea-colloquy
procedures before June 16, 2000 and there was no independent
evidence that the proper plea procedures were followed during
-2-
Roberson's March 4, 1998 plea hearing.1 The local state district
court allowed the unopposed motion on January 11, 2013. We assume
arguendo that Roberson's plea colloquy was constitutionally
defective.
On February 15, 2013, Roberson moved to dismiss his
federal charges on the basis that he no longer had a predicate sex
offense to support a SORNA violation. More specifically, he argued
that because of the constitutional defect, he was never "validly"
convicted. He argued that his case is governed by Burgett v.
Texas, 389 U.S. 109 (1967), and not by Lewis v. United States, 445
U.S. 55 (1980).
Agreeing with the district court, we hold that SORNA's
registration requirement applied to Roberson as a person who "was
convicted" of a sex offense, 42 U.S.C. § 16911(1), enforced by 18
U.S.C. § 2250, regardless of whether that conviction is later
vacated, when federal charges have been brought for conduct before
the vacation of conviction. We also reject Roberson's additional
challenges.
I.
On March 4, 1998, pursuant to a guilty plea, Roberson was
convicted of indecent assault and battery on a child under the age
1
The tape recording of Roberson's plea colloquy could not be
located. The state judge who accepted Roberson's guilty plea was
publicly reprimanded in 2005 for failing to follow proper plea-
colloquy procedure before June 16, 2000.
-3-
of 14, in violation of Chapter 265, § 13B of the Massachusetts
General Laws. Roberson was sentenced to three years' probation.
A week later, Roberson signed a notice informing him of his duties
to register as a sex offender. In 2001, a Massachusetts arrest
warrant was issued for Roberson for a probation violation.
In 2006, Roberson obtained a Florida driver's license.
Over the next three years, the Florida Department of Law
Enforcement mailed Roberson notices regarding his obligation to
register as a sex offender. The Department proceeded to place
Roberson on the Florida sex offender registry. Roberson did not
register himself.
On July 14, 2010, a Vermont detective spoke to Roberson
about his obligation to register as a sex offender. Roberson
claimed that he was only visiting the state.
Between May and June 2011, Roberson worked in
Massachusetts. Again, he did not register as a sex offender.
After leaving the state and traveling to Nicaragua, Roberson
returned to Massachusetts in April 2012. Roberson was arrested on
May 18, 2012 on the outstanding warrant for his probation
violation. Roberson did not register as a sex offender while
living in Massachusetts during April and May 2012.
On July 12, 2012, a federal grand jury indicted Roberson
on one count of failing to register under SORNA, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2250. Section 2250 makes it a crime for an individual who
-4-
is "required to register under [SORNA]" to "travel[] in interstate
or foreign commerce" and to "knowingly fail[] to register or update
a registration" pursuant to SORNA's requirements. 18 U.S.C.
§ 2250(a). The indictment alleged a violation "[f]rom in or about
February, 2010 to on or about May 18, 2012, in the District of
Massachusetts and elsewhere." We have described his post-
indictment recourse to the Massachusetts state court.
On February 15, 2013, Roberson filed a motion to dismiss
his federal indictment, challenging the Government's reliance on
his now-vacated prior predicate conviction.2 The Government
opposed, arguing that the indictment was based upon Roberson's
failure to register at a time when his Massachusetts conviction was
"still in effect" and, as such, when he was still under an
obligation to register. The Government relied upon Lewis, 445 U.S.
at 65-68, in which the Supreme Court held that a defendant's
indictment and conviction for being a felon in possession of a
firearm were not undermined by the defendant's later producing
evidence which the Court assumed showed that the predicate felony
2
Roberson also raised before the trial court and raises
again on appeal certain Ex Post Facto Clause, Due Process Clause,
Equal Protection Clause, Commerce Clause, and separation of powers
challenges to SORNA. Roberson concedes that those challenges are
foreclosed by binding circuit precedent, see, e.g., United States
v. Whitlow, 714 F.3d 41, 44 (1st Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S.
Ct. 287 (2013); United States v. Parks, 698 F.3d 1, 4-8 (1st Cir.
2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 2021, but raises them in order to
preserve them for eventual Supreme Court review.
-5-
conviction was obtained in violation of the defendant's Sixth
Amendment right to counsel. The conviction was affirmed.
On April 8, 2013, the district court orally denied
Roberson's motion to dismiss the indictment, but said it would
consider the state court's action at sentencing. Roberson entered
a conditional guilty plea on May 22, 2013, reserving his right to
appeal the district court's denial of his motion. On July 22,
2013, the district court sentenced Roberson to six months'
imprisonment with no supervision to follow.
II.
The question of whether a defendant's prior conviction
qualifies as a predicate offense under a federal criminal statute
is an issue of federal law that this court reviews de novo. See
Aguiar v. Gonzáles, 438 F.3d 86, 88 (1st Cir. 2006).
In our view, the Supreme Court's decisions in Lewis and
United States v. Mendoza-Lopez, 481 U.S. 828 (1987), require us to
affirm, as does our post-Lewis caselaw. Other circuits have
reached similar conclusions as to other statutes.
Congress enacted SORNA in 2006 "to establish a
comprehensive national system for the registration of sex
offenders." United States v. Whitlow, 714 F.3d 41, 43 (1st Cir.
2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 287; accord 42 U.S.C. § 16901.
"SORNA's general changes were designed to make more uniform what
had remained 'a patchwork of federal and 50 individual state
-6-
registration systems,'" United States v. Kebodeaux, 133 S. Ct.
2496, 2505 (2013) (quoting Reynolds v. United States, 132 S. Ct.
975, 978 (2012)), beset with "'loopholes and deficiencies' that had
resulted in an estimated 100,000 sex offenders becoming 'missing'
or 'lost,'" id. (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 109-218, pt. 1, at 20, 26
(2005)).
Under SORNA, "[a] sex offender shall register, and keep
the registration current, in each jurisdiction where the offender
resides [or] where the offender is an employee." 42 U.S.C.
§ 16913(a). In turn, SORNA, defines "sex offender" as "an
individual who was convicted of a sex offense." Id. § 16911(1)
(emphasis added). Roberson concedes that the crime to which he
pled guilty in March 1998 is a "sex offense." He does not contest
that he traveled and had not registered. The question is whether,
under the language of SORNA, he "was convicted" of that crime for
conduct before the vacation of that conviction.
We start with the language of the statute. In Lewis, the
Supreme Court interpreted a statute in a similar regulatory system,
where the federal crime of being a felon in possession of a firearm
depended on the defendant being a person who "has been convicted by
a court . . . of a felony." 445 U.S. at 60 (internal quotation
marks omitted) (quoting Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act
of 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-351, 82 Stat. 197, Tit. VII, § 1202(a)(1)).
It was faced with a claim that the predicate felony was based on a
-7-
constitutional error under Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335(1963), which the Court assumed to be true. Nonetheless, it
affirmed the conviction under section 1202(a)(1) and rejected a
claim that its reading violated the Constitution. The Court
characterized the language "convicted by a court" as
"unambiguous[]" and "sweeping." Lewis, 445 U.S. at 60. The Court
looked to the plain language and then considered the fact that the
statute contained numerous exceptions, none of which provided an
exception for convictions which might turn out later to be
invalidated for any reason. Id. at 61-62. The Court also
contrasted section 1202(a)(1) with other statutes which explicitly
provided a defense of challenging the validity or constitutionality
of a predicate felony. Id. at 62.
As for the sparse legislative history, the Court
concluded it reflected "an intent to impose a firearms disability
on any felon based on the fact of conviction." Id. It stressed
the fact of conviction, and not a "valid" conviction. Id.In Mendoza-Lopez, the Supreme Court considered a
similarly worded statute which made it a felony to enter the
country after having been "deported." The Court held that
"deported" could not be read to refer just to "lawful"
deportations, despite serious constitutional concerns, which are
-8-
not at issue in this case.3 481 U.S. at 833-837, 841-42; see also
Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Fla. Gulf Coast Bldg. & Constr. Trades
Council, 485 U.S. 568, 575 (1988) ("[W]here an otherwise acceptable
construction of a statute would raise serious constitutional
problems, the Court will construe the statute to avoid such
problems unless such construction is plainly contrary to the intent
of Congress.").
In looking to the language of federal statutes referring
to those "convicted" of a crime, this court has observed that "[b]y
its normal meaning a defendant has been 'convicted by a court' even
though the conviction may sometime be reversed." United States v.
Samson, 533 F.2d 721, 722 (1st Cir. 1976) (holding that prohibition
against receiving firearms in commerce after having "been convicted
by a court . . . of a felony" does not require final predicate
conviction); accord United States v. Currier, 821 F.2d 52, 59-60
(1st Cir. 1987) (holding that conviction then pending "on appeal
and so, at the time of the hearing, subject to vacation or
reversal" constitutes a predicate conviction for purposes of repeat
offender provision applying to those "previously 'convicted' of two
offenses" (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3575(e)(1))).
3
As the Court explained in Mendoza-Lopez, the constitutional
defect in the reentry statute resulted from "the unavailability of
effective judicial review" of the administrative determination
resulting in the predicate deportation. 481 U.S. at 841-42. As
Roberson's successful challenge to his predicate conviction
demonstrates, SORNA suffers from no such infirmity.
-9-
Congress has, in the definition of the offense, stated
that "convicted" refers to the historical fact of the conviction,
regardless of whether that conviction might later be vacated. See
Lewis, 445 U.S. at 60-61 ("[The] plain meaning [of 'has been
convicted by a court of the United States or of a State . . . of a
felony'] is that the fact of a felony conviction imposes a . . .
disability until the conviction is vacated or the felon is relieved
of his disability by some affirmative action . . . .").
Using the same mode of analysis as Lewis, we conclude
Roberson's challenge must fail. The language is plain. The term
"was convicted" refers to the fact of conviction and does not refer
just to a "valid" conviction. Instead, Roberson asks this court
not to give "was convicted" its normal meaning. See Black's Law
Dictionary 383 (9th ed. 2009) (defining "convict" as "vb. To find
(a person) guilty of a criminal offense upon a criminal trial, a
plea of guilty, or a plea of nolo contendere (no contest)").
He argues "was convicted" must refer only to what he
calls a "valid" conviction.4 But Lewis expressly rejects that
reading of almost identical language. Roberson points to no
additional statutory language indicating that Congress intends the
4
By "valid," Roberson means a conviction that is not "void."
He argues that a conviction obtained in violation of due process is
void, Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243 n.5 (1969), and that
"[a] void judgment is one which, from its inception, was a complete
nullity and without legal effect," Lubben v. Selective Serv. Sys.
Local Bd. No. 27, 453 F.2d 645, 649 (1st Cir. 1972).
-10-
more restrictive reading of "was convicted by a court" that he
proposes.5
To the contrary, as did the statute in Lewis, SORNA has
exceptions to its coverage. See 42 U.S.C. § 16911(5)(B)-(C); see
also 18 U.S.C. § 2250(b) (providing as affirmative defense in
§ 2250 prosecution that defendant was prevented from registration
by "uncontrollable circumstances"). But none of the exceptions is
for a later vacated conviction, even when the vacation is on
constitutional grounds. This analysis also involves the two
considerations utilized by the Lewis Court: when Congress has
provided limited exceptions within the same statute, courts will
not read in additional exceptions. See Lewis, 445 U.S. at 61-62.
5
Roberson does cite 42 U.S.C. § 16911(5)(B), which states
that "[a] foreign conviction is not a sex offense for the purposes
of this subchapter if it was not obtained with sufficient
safeguards for fundamental fairness and due process for the accused
under guidelines or regulations established" by the Attorney
General. From this, Roberson argues Congress intends SORNA
registration to be required only on the basis of an individual
conviction that is consistent with due process. He fatally makes
no distinction between judicial systems and individual case
outcomes. As the Attorney General interpreted this provision
pursuant to his statutory mandate, Congress intends that a
conviction triggers the SORNA registration requirement only if it
is the product of a judicial system which, like that of the United
States, contains "sufficient safeguards for fundamental fairness
and due process." See 73 Fed Reg. 38,030, 38,050 (July 2, 2008)
("Sex offense convictions under the laws of Canada, United Kingdom,
Australia, and New Zealand are deemed to have been obtained with
sufficient safeguards for fundamental fairness and due process, and
registration must be required for such convictions on the same
footing as domestic convictions."). Congress did not intend for
federal courts, in the context of applying SORNA, to engage in
case-by-case due process review of predicate state court
convictions.
-11-
And that conclusion is only strengthened by the existence of other
statutes that show Congress knew how to create such an exception
when it wished to do so. See id.Congress did not create the "loophole[]" Roberson wishes.
Kebodeaux, 133 S. Ct. at 2505. Where Congress is clear, there is
no role for the rule of lenity.6 And, as in Lewis, this
congressional scheme is entirely constitutional.7 See, e.g.,
Whitlow, 714 F.3d at 44; United States v. Parks, 698 F.3d 1, 4-8
(1st Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 2021 (2013).
6
Nor, if we were free to consult legislative history despite
the plain language of the statute, has Roberson identified any
history that lends support to his interpretation.
7
Roberson attempts to distinguish Lewis by arguing that
Congress' intent in enacting the felon-in-possession statute at
issue there was broader than its intent in enacting SORNA.
Specifically, he notes that the felon-in-possession statute does
not apply solely to individuals with prior convictions but also to
those merely indicted for a felony charge, as well as fugitives,
aliens unlawfully in the United States, and individuals who have
renounced U.S. citizenship, among others. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(n),
(g)(2), (g)(5), (g)(7). From this, Roberson argues that the
statute in Lewis has a broader prophylactic rationale than SORNA.
This argument fails. While the firearms statute does reach
groups aside from convicted felons, the Lewis Court did not rely on
that structure in its analysis of "was convicted." See 445 U.S. at
60 ("[The statute's] proscription is directed unambiguously at any
person who 'has been convicted by a court of the United States or
of a State . . . of a felony.'" (emphasis added)). Moreover,
Roberson's argument essentially asks us to read the absence of
categories unrelated to individuals with prior convictions to imply
the phrase "provided that the conviction is valid." There is
simply no basis for that reading in SORNA's text. The plain
language encompasses Roberson's conduct and properly subjects him
to criminal penalties for failing to register.
-12-
At the heart of Roberson's case is his reliance on
Burgett v. Texas for the proposition that an unconstitutionally
obtained conviction ordinarily cannot be used "either to support
guilt or enhance punishment for another offense." 389 U.S. 109,
115 (1967).
Roberson's Burgett-based argument was explicitly
considered and rejected in Lewis. Recognizing that an uncounseled
felony conviction cannot be used for certain purposes, and citing
Burgett, United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443 (1972), and Loper v.
Beto, 405 U.S. 473 (1972), the Lewis Court held:
Use of an uncounseled felony conviction as the
basis for imposing a civil firearms
disability, enforceable by a criminal
sanction, is not inconsistent with Burgett,
Tucker, and Loper. In each of those cases,
this Court found that the subsequent
conviction or sentence violated the Sixth
Amendment because it depended upon the
reliability of a past uncounseled conviction.
The federal gun laws, however, focus not on
reliability, but on the mere fact of
conviction, or even indictment, in order to
keep firearms away from potentially dangerous
persons. Congress' judgment that a convicted
felon, even one whose conviction was allegedly
uncounseled, is among the class of persons who
should be disabled from dealing in or
possessing firearms because of potential
dangerousness is rational. Enforcement of
that essentially civil disability through a
criminal sanction does not "support guilt or
enhance punishment," see Burgett, 389 U.S., at
115,[] on the basis of a conviction that is
unreliable when one considers Congress' broad
purpose. Moreover, unlike the situation in
Burgett, the sanction imposed by § 1202(a)(1)
attaches immediately upon the defendant's
first conviction.
-13-
Lewis, 445 U.S. at 67 (footnote omitted).
As we held in Parks, 698 F.3d at 5, SORNA is "a civil
regulatory measure aiming at forestalling future harm." We
observed "[r]egistration is frequently part of civil regulation,
including car licensing, social security applications, and
registering for selective service," and may be enforced by a
criminal sanction. Id. at 6. As Lewis makes clear, where a civil
disability "focus[es] not on reliability, but on the mere fact of
conviction," enforcement of that disability through criminal
sanction does not implicate the constitutional concern at issue in
Burgett. 445 U.S. at 67 (emphasis added). By its plain language,
SORNA has precisely that focus. For that reason, Burgett has no
application here.
As to Roberson's invocation of Boykin v. Alabama, 395
U.S. 238, 243 n.5 (1969), and Lubben v. Selective Serv. Sys. Local
Bd. No. 27, 453 F.2d 645, 649 (1st Cir. 1972), that argument also
fails under circuit precedent which postdates Boykin and Lubben.
In United States v. Snyder, 235 F.3d 42, 51-54 (1st Cir. 2000), we
held that the later vacating of a state court conviction did not
invalidate the defendant's federal conviction as a felon in
possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) because he was
-14-
a felon at the time of the charged possession.8 We drew a
distinction between the use of a vacated conviction in the
sentencing context and in the context of predicate offenses. Id.
at 52-53. We observed that laws that condition a civil disability
on the historical fact of conviction "reflect the desirability of
having a clear, bright line in respect to [that disability]: one
who has a . . . conviction on the books, a conviction not yet set
aside, should simply know" that the disability applies. Id. at 53(quoting United States v. Paleo, 9 F.3d 988, 989 (1st Cir. 1992))
(internal quotation mark omitted).
As Lewis notes, an individual subject to a civil
disability may challenge a predicate conviction "in an appropriate
proceeding" before engaging in the prohibited conduct. 445 U.S. at
64; cf. Mendoza-Lopez, 481 U.S. at 841 ("It is precisely the
unavailability of effective judicial review of the administrative
determination at issue here that sets this case apart from
Lewis."). In the present context, there is no reason to think that
8
Other circuits have followed similar reasoning. See, e.g.,
United States v. Padilla, 387 F.3d 1087, 1090-92 (9th Cir. 2004)
(holding defendant not entitled to new trial on felon in possession
conviction based on vacatur of the predicate felony after his
conviction); Burrell v. United States, 384 F.3d 22, 27-28 (2d Cir.
2004) (explaining "the determinate factor [in a felon in possession
prosecution] is [the] defendant's criminal record at the time of
the charged possession" without regard to whether it is later set
aside); United States v. Lee, 72 F.3d 55, 58 (7th Cir. 1995)
(holding fact that defendant's predicate conviction was vacated
shortly before trial did not undermine prosecution for being felon
in possession); United States v. Cabrera, 786 F.2d 1097, 1098 (11th
Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (similar).
-15-
Congress would willingly engender uncertainty concerning to whom
SORNA's registration requirement applies by permitting those who
fail to register to challenge their predicate convictions after the
fact. Roberson flouted the registration law for twelve years, and
had ample time to seek to vacate his conviction.
III.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
- Concurring Opinion Follows -
-16-
TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge, Concurring. Faced with
statutory language highly analogous to that now on appeal, the
Supreme Court has held that Congress may impose civil disabilities,
enforceable via criminal sanctions, based on the existence of a
constitutionally infirm prior predicate conviction. Lewis v.
United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65-68 (1980). Doing so, the Supreme
Court concluded, does not threaten the rights of individuals so
disabled. Id. at 67 ("Enforcement of [an] essentially civil
disability through a criminal sanction does not 'support guilt or
enhance punishment . . . .'" (quoting Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S.
109, 115 (1967)). I disagree, being fully persuaded by the
existence of significant constitutional concerns as articulated by
the dissenting justices in that case. Id. at 72 (Brennan, J.,
dissenting) ("Here, petitioner could have not been tried and
convicted for violating [SORNA] in the absence of his previous
felony conviction. It could not be plainer that his
constitutionally void conviction was therefore used 'to support
guilt' for the current offense."); see also Burgett, 389 U.S. at
115 (holding that constitutionally infirm convictions may not be
used to "support guilt or enhance punishment for another offense").
I am also troubled by the thought that this exception,
borne out of a civil disability seen as relatively insignificant by
reviewing courts, may apply uniformly to validate disabilities far
more severe. Compare Lewis, 445 U.S. at 66 (highlighting that
-17-
there are "activities far more fundamental than the possession of
a firearm"), and United States v. Samson, 533 F.2d 721, 722 (1st
Cir. 1976) (calling firearm dispossession "slight compared with the
gravity of the public interest sought to be protected"), with
Samson, 533 F.2d at 722 ("[I]f the disability imposed by the
statute is sufficiently serious to the defendant, it might be
appropriate to [adopt a] more restricted meaning [of the phrase
'convicted by a court']."), and United States v. Parks, 698 F.3d 1,
5 (1st Cir. 2012) ("SORNA is surely burdensome for those subject to
it.").
Nonetheless, it is the job of an appellate judge to
faithfully apply the law as articulated by the Supreme Court. See
Lewis, 445 U.S. at 65-68. And that faithful respect extends, in
equal measure, to prior precedent from this court. See United
States v. Snyder, 235 F.3d 42, 51-54 (1st Cir. 2000). Here,
although troubled by the result, I believe the majority's
conclusion is consistent with our binding precedent. Accordingly,
I concur. I write separately, however, to urge that we hold the
line where we now stand (already on ground both slippery and
sloping) so that the protections of Burgett, 389 U.S. 109, and its
progeny are not further eroded.
-18-