Epstein Secrets

LD JR,WILLIAM H CARNEY,PATRICK HORN,LINDA FANJUL,ANDRES HULITAR,MARY 2

DNER,NORBERT M MADOFF,PETER B STERN,BURTON GAINES,STANLEY N SILVERMAN,HENRY R

fendant to inquire as to necessity of registration; defendant registered as sex offender in South Carolina and would have known that registration in Indiana was necessary EFTA00726938 Page 9 18 USCS § 2250 when defendant moved there. United States v Dixon (2008, CA7 Ind) 551 F3d 578. Because defenda

authority under Commerce Clause in enacting SORNA and requirement that certain sex offenders register or update their registration. United States v Buxton (2007, WD Okla) 2007 US Dist LEXIS 76142 (criticized in United States v Deese (2007, WD Okla) 2007 US Dist LEXIS 70677) and (criticized in United St

tes v Guzman (2008, ND NY) 582 F Supp 2d 305 (criticized in United States v Howell (2009, CA8 lowa) 2009 US App LEXIS 541). Fact that New York and Indiana had yet to update their registries and procedures to conform with Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 USCS§§ 16901-16991, had

or her post-SORNA failure to register, 18 USCS § 2250 did not constitute retroactive punishment prohibited by Ex Post Facto Clause. United States v Buxton (2007, WD Okla) 2007 US Dist LEXIS 76142 (criticized in United States v Deese (2007, WD Okla) 2007 US Dist LENS 70677) and (criticized in United St