From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Berkley

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 21, 2013
542 F. App'x 678 (9th Cir. 2013)

Opinion

Submitted October 15, 2013

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. D.C. No. 4:11-cr-02884-DCB. Ronald S.W. Lew, District Judge, Presiding.

The Honorable Ronald S.W. Lew, Senior United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.

For UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee: Karen Elizabeth Rolley, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU - OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY, Tucson, AZ.

For CHAD ANDREW BERKLEY, Defendant - Appellant: Darla Jean Mondou, Esquire, Attorney, MONDOU LAW OFFICE, Marana, AZ.


Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

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

Chad Andrew Berkley appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction for failure to register as a sex offender, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Berkley argues that the registration requirements of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (" SORNA" ) did not apply to him when he moved from Pennsylvania to Arizona in 2010, because the Attorney General's SMART guidelines, which made the requirements retroactive as of August 1, 2008, did not comply with the Administrative Procedure Act (" APA" ). Berkley's claim is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Valverde, 628 F.3d 1159, 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2010), in which we held that the final SMART guidelines issued on July 2, 2008, complied with the APA's procedural requirements and that SORNA became effective against offenders like Berkley, who were convicted before the statute's enactment, on August 1, 2008. See United States v. Mattix, 694 F.3d 1082, 1084-85 (9th Cir. 2012) (per curiam), cert. denied, 134 S.Ct. 139, 187 L.Ed.2d 99, 2013 WL 2417739 (U.S. Oct. 7, 2013).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

United States v. Berkley

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 21, 2013
542 F. App'x 678 (9th Cir. 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Berkley

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHAD ANDREW BERKLEY…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Oct 21, 2013

Citations

542 F. App'x 678 (9th Cir. 2013)