U.S. v. LUNSFORD, 11-0175-CR-W-GAF. (2012)
Court: District Court, W.D. Missouri
Number: infdco20120224b72
Visitors: 24
Filed: Feb. 23, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 23, 2012
Summary: ORDER GARY A. FENNER, District Judge. Now pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #26). Defendant argues that the Indictment should be dismissed because "the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act ("SORNA") has no application to persons that have relocated to foreign jurisdictions." On January 24, 2012, United States Magistrate Judge Sarah W. Hays issued her Report and Recommendation (Doc. #28). On February 20, 2012, defendant filed his Objections to the Repor
Summary: ORDER GARY A. FENNER, District Judge. Now pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #26). Defendant argues that the Indictment should be dismissed because "the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act ("SORNA") has no application to persons that have relocated to foreign jurisdictions." On January 24, 2012, United States Magistrate Judge Sarah W. Hays issued her Report and Recommendation (Doc. #28). On February 20, 2012, defendant filed his Objections to the Report..
More
ORDER
GARY A. FENNER, District Judge.
Now pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #26). Defendant argues that the Indictment should be dismissed because "the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act ("SORNA") has no application to persons that have relocated to foreign jurisdictions."
On January 24, 2012, United States Magistrate Judge Sarah W. Hays issued her Report and Recommendation (Doc. #28). On February 20, 2012, defendant filed his Objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. #35).
Upon careful and independent review of the pending motion, defendant's objections to the Report and Recommendation, as well as the applicable law, this Court hereby adopts and incorporates as its own Opinion and Order the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Sarah W. Hays.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #26) is OVERRULED and DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
