USA v. Billy Ross, No. 09-50890 (5th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 09-50890 Document: 00511166897 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/08/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 09-50890 Summary Calendar July 8, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. BILLY RAY ROSS, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:09-CR-977-1 Before BENAVIDES, PRADO, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Billy Ray Ross appeals from his conviction of failing to register as a sex offender, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ยง 2550. He argues in his appellant s brief that the interim regulations making the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) retroactive violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because the Attorney General failed to allow a comment period before promulgating the regulations. He concedes in his reply brief that the Government is correct that his APA argument is unavailing * Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR . R. 47.5.4. Case: 09-50890 Document: 00511166897 Page: 2 No. 09-50890 Date Filed: 07/08/2010 because the permanent regulations governing retroactivity apply to his case. Ross has abandoned the APA issue and we do not consider it. See Morin v. Caire, 77 F.3d 116, 120 n.6 (5th Cir. 1996). Ross asserts that the Government failed to show that he knowingly failed to register as a sex offender or update his registration because it failed to show that he had knowledge of the requirements of SORNA. Ross s argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Heth, 596 F.3d 255, 258 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Whaley, 577 F.3d 254, 262 n.6 (5th Cir. 2009). He contends that SORNA is beyond Congress s power under the Commerce Clause. He argues that SORNA violates the Due Process Clause because no notice of the statute s registration requirements is required for a violation of the statute and because he was prosecuted before any state implemented SORNA. He concedes that his contentions are foreclosed, but he raises them to preserve them for further review. Ross s Commerce Clause and Due Process Clause contentions are foreclosed. See Heth, 596 F.3d at 259-60; Whaley, 577 F.3d at 258-62. AFFIRMED. 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.
