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.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
Opinion Filed February 9, 2010
Opinion by Circuit Judge Nygaard
For Appellant: Frederick W. Ulrich, Thomas A. Thornton, Office of the Federal Public Defender