United States v. Mi Kyung Byun

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that SORNA’s legislative history, “shows that Congress intended to include all individuals who commit sex crimes against minors, not only those who were convicted under a statute having the age of the victim as an element”
• applying a non-categorical approach at least to the limited question of “the age of the victim”
• discussing SORNA’s legislative history and holding that for purposes of determining whether a defendant is a “sex offender,” the court may consider the actual age of the victim
• stating the date of the opinion as July 1, 2008, with SMART Guidelines, 73 Fed.Reg. at 38,030 (stating that the Guidelines are published Wednesday, July 2, 2008)
• “Because we hold Byun committed a sex offense under § 16911(5)(A)(ii), we do not address whether Byun’s crime qualifies as a sex offense under § 16911(5)(A)(i).”
• “The specific reference to an ‘element’ requires an analysis of the statutory elements, rather than an examination of the underlying facts.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).