United States v Nichols

Nichols appealed his conviction for failing to update his sex registry data after he moved to the Philippines. The panel affirmed. It held that under circuit precedent, leaving a state and going to a foreign country trigger the requirement to update information and the panel could not overturn the prior precedent. It also held that the application of the federal sex registry statute to Nichols was constitutional as the delegation to the Attorney General to decide whether to apply the requirements to offenders like Nichols who were convicted before the federal statue was enacted was bound by intelligible principles of protecting children and creating a uniform registration system and the delegation was very narrow applying only to the issue of prior convicted offenders. One judge added a concurrence calling for en banc review of the foreign jurisdiction issue.

United States v Denson

Denson appealed the denial of his motion to suppress. The panel affirmed. It held that the officers who entered the house to arrest Denson had reason to believe he was there given his name on the residential utility account, being unemployed and thus likely home at 8:30 am, had absconded form law enforcement and the electrical meter was moving rapidly. As these facts were sufficient, the panel left for another day the issue of whether using a handheld Doppler radar unit without a warrant violates the 4th amendment. The panel held the protective sweep which discovered firearms was lawful as Denson was a gang member with a history of violent crime who was hiding from police. The panel noted that the record did not contain enough information to determine if the radar sweep dispelled the justification for the sweep and again left the issue for another day. The panel finally upheld the seizure of the firearms as Denson was on the utility account, was present in the home, was a felon and had access to the working firearms.

United States v Burns

Burns was convicted of child pornography charges. He appealed a condition of supervised release that he get permission from his probation officer to visit his daughter. The panel applied plain error review and reversed. It held that because the district court did not make any factual findings about the need for the requirement, it violated clear circuit precedent and there was a reasonable chance the provision would not have been added if the district court had undertaken the required analysis. The case was thus remanded for further proceedings.