United States of America v. Jesse Lee Vardaro

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JESSE LEE VARDARO,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-30382
D.C. No. 1:08-cr-00004-RFC-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Richard F. Cebull, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted July 12, 2010
Seattle, Washington
Before: REINHARDT, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Jesse Lee Vardaro appeals his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a) for
failure to register as a sexual offender under the Sex Offender Registration and
Notification Act (“SORNA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
we affirm.
FILED
AUG 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
Under SORNA, an individual who has been convicted of a sex offense must
register, and keep the registration current, “in each jurisdiction where the offender
resides, where the offender is an employee, and where the offender is a student.”
42 U.S.C. § 16913(a). SORNA also requires that a:
sex offender shall, not later than 3 business days after
each change of name, residence, employment, or student
status, appear in person in at least 1 jurisdiction involved
pursuant to subsection (a) of this section and inform that
jurisdiction of all changes in the information required for
that offender in the sex offender registry.
Id. § 16913(c).
The district court found that Vardaro, who had registered as a sex offender
in Michigan, was an employee of Dawson Geophysical in Montana from October
28, 2007, until early January 2008, and that he resided in Montana during that
same approximate period. Accordingly, the district court concluded that Vardaro
was required to register as a sex offender in Montana.
On appeal, Vardaro concedes that he is an individual required to register
under SORNA, that he traveled in interstate commerce, and that he knowingly
failed to update his registration. He argues that the district court improperly
concluded that he resided in Montana for purposes of SORNA and was therefore
required to register in that state. Importantly, however, he fails to challenge the

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
district court’s finding that he was employed in Montana and therefore had an
obligation, independent of his residence status, to register under SORNA. Because
Vardaro had an obligation under SORNA to register in the jurisdiction in which he
was employed and because he does not challenge the district court's findings that
he was employed in Montana and that he failed to register there, his conviction
must be affirmed.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --