United States v. Dailey, No. 18–10134 (9th Cir. 2019)
Nature of Case: Appellant entered a guilty plea to a violation of the Travel Act. In the plea agreement, Appellant agreed that the underlying facts of the case involved transporting a juvenile across state lines for the purposes of prostitution. At sentencing, the trial court imposed a condition that would require the Appellant to register as a sex offender, and Appellant appealed that condition arguing that it was illegal (appellate waiver in the plea agreement notwithstanding).
Holding: 9th Circuit dismissed Appellant’s appeal, finding that the aspect of her sentence that required her to register as a sex offender was not illegal (and thus her appeal was foreclosed by way of the appellate waiver in her plea agreement). Specifically, the Court held that SORNA’s so-called residual clause mandated a non-categorical analysis of the offense in order to determine whether federal law mandated registration (and here it did mandate registration). Furthermore, Appellant was provided adequate notice of the registration requirement, and the district court did not improperly delegate its authority to probation officials.
- 9th Circuit Opinion | view via Google Scholar
- Appellant’s Brief
- Appellee’s Brief
- Appellant’s Reply Brief