Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

US v. Shenandoah, No. 09-1205

By FindLaw Staff on February 09, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

District court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss his indictment for failing to register as a sex offender in violation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) is affirmed where: 1) nothing in SORNA or its guidelines indicates that a jurisdiction's failure to comply with SORNA relieves offenders of the obligation to register in that jurisdiction; 2) the Ex Post Facto Clause has no application to defendant's situation; 3) defendant had notice of his registration obligations; 4) SORNA is a proper regulation of commerce under the Lopez categories; 5) defendant, as a private part, lacks standing to raise a Tenth Amendment challenge to SORNA; 6) any impediment on defendant's travel does not reach the Constitutional threshold of his right to travel interstate; and 7) defendant lacks standing to challenge the rule or the manner in which it was promulgated.   

Read US v. Shenandoah, No. 09-1205

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

Opinion Filed February 9, 2010


Before:  McKee, Chagares, and Nygaard, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Circuit Judge Nygaard


For Appellant: Frederick W. Ulrich, Thomas A. Thornton, Office of the Federal Public Defender

For Appellee:  Martin C. Carlson, Theodore B. Smith, III, Office of the US Attorney

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard