United States v. Hardeman, No. 11-10540 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseAfter defendant allegedly traveled to Mexico and engaged in illicit sexual conduct involving a minor, the government indicted defendant on one count of violating 18 U.S.C. 2423(c) and, because he was under a state-law duty to register as a sex offender, one count of violating section 2260A. The court held that the section 2260A count against defendant did not violate ex post facto principles. Even accepting defendant's argument that the state laws applied the registration requirement to him retroactively, the additional punishment under section 2260A was not for his earlier crimes. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of that count and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel reversed the district court’s order dismissing on ex post facto grounds a count charging the defendant with committing an offense involving a minor while under a duty to register as a sex offender, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2260A. The district court held that the § 2260A count violated the Ex Post Facto Clause because the defendant’s duty to register arose through retroactive state laws. The panel disagreed. The panel wrote that even accepting the defendant’s argument that the state laws applied the registration requirement to him retroactively, the additional punishment under § 2260A is not for his earlier crimes, and the § 2260A count therefore does not violate ex post facto principles.
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.