USA v. Nam Hoang, No. 09-30484 (5th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Defendant petitioned for a panel rehearing in light of United States v. Johnson where the panel addressed whether the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act ("SORNA") applied to pre-enactment sex offenders at the time of enactment or whether the statute delegated to the Attorney General the decision to apply to SORNA pre-enactment offenders. At issue was whether the court's decision was inconsistent with Johnson when it failed to cite the case in its holding. The court held that to whatever extent SORNA may be characterized as ambiguous, the rule of lenity precluded the court from applying it to defendant and such an alternative holding yielded no inconsistency with Johnson.

This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on February 23, 2011.

Download PDF

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED March 25, 2011 No. 09-30484 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee v. NAM VAN HOANG, Defendant Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana Before JONES, Chief Judge, JOLLY and GARZA, Circuit Judges. E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge: The government s petition for panel rehearing is DENIED. In denying this petition, we should observe that shortly before our opinion in this case issued, another panel decided United States v. Johnson, --- F.3d ----, 2011 WL 338802 (5th Cir. Feb. 4, 2011). Because the cases were decided virtually simultaneously, our opinion failed to note Johnson, in which the panel addressed whether the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act ( SORNA ) applied to pre-enactment sex offenders at the time of enactment, or whether the statute delegated to the Attorney General the decision to apply SORNA to pre-enactment offenders. The panel held that SORNA delegated authority to the Attorney General to determine the applicability of SORNA to No. 09-30484 pre-enactment offenders. Id. at *6. Although our opinion failed to cite Johnson, our reasoning and holding in this case are not inconsistent with it. To be sure, we reached an alternative holding that is, that to whatever extent SORNA may be characterized as ambiguous, the rule of lenity precludes us from applying it to Hoang but this alternative holding yields no inconsistency between our opinion and Johnson. Furthermore, although Johnson additionally held that the Attorney General did not have good cause for failing to comply with the Administrative Procedures Act in promulgating the Interim Rule that declared SORNA retroactive, our panel was not presented with that issue. The fact that we said Hoang, a pre-enactment sex offender, did not become subject to SORNA s registration requirements until the Attorney General issued the Interim Rule, should not be construed otherwise. Finally, although our opinion did not refer to three additional recently-decided cases from other circuits one consistent w ith our holding and two conflicting nothing in those cases alters the reasoning applied or the outcome reached in this appeal. DENIED.1 1 The government s motion for a stay of our ruling on this petition for panel rehearing is also DENIED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.