United States of America v. Nathan First In Trouble, also known as Nathaniel First In Trouble

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2290
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Nathan First In Trouble, also known as Nathaniel First In Trouble
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of South Dakota - Central
____________
Submitted: February 14, 2025
Filed: May 22, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Nathan First In Trouble pleaded guilty to failing to register as a sex offender
under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 18 U.S.C.
§ 2250(a). The district court classified him as a Tier III sex offender and sentenced
him to 13 months in prison and five years of supervised release. First In Trouble
says he is actually a Tier II sex offender, and the Government admits he is right. He

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
asks us to vacate his sentence and remand so the district court can correct the
mistake.
We first consider whether we have jurisdiction. First In Trouble argues that
his tier classification led to the wrong guideline range. See U.S.S.G. § 2A3.5(a)(1)–
(3) (base offense levels for Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III sex offenders). Even if that is
true, he is out of custody, and his challenge to his prison term is moot. See Owen v.
United States, 930 F.3d 989, 990 (8th Cir. 2019).
First In Trouble insists that his erroneous Tier III classification brings with it
a stigma and has ongoing collateral consequences for his future sex offender
registration. But any stigma from sentencing cannot sustain this case. See United
States v. Juv. Male, 564 U.S. 932, 936–39 (2011) (per curiam) (holding case
challenging SORNA registration imposed at supervised release revocation as moot
despite lower court discussing stigma of ongoing registration).
Nor are there ongoing collateral consequences for First In Trouble’s future
sex offender registration. In South Dakota, where First In Trouble lives, tier
classification at sentencing for a failure to register conviction does not affect his
registration requirements. See S.D. Codified Laws §§ 22-24B-19–19.2.
First In Trouble suggests there may be collateral consequences if he moves to
another state. E.g., Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-4005(1)(b)(iii) (requiring lifetime
registration if, among other reasons, the offender “has been determined to be a
lifetime registrant in another, state, territory, commonwealth, or other jurisdiction of
the United States, [or] by the United States Government.”); Mo. Rev. Stat.
§ 589.400.1(7) (requiring registration for “any person who . . . has been or is
required to register under tribal, federal, or military law”). We are not convinced.
First In Trouble’s tier classification at sentencing does not determine his registration
requirements. See 34 U.S.C. § 20911(2)–(5) (sex offender’s tier determined by
underlying sex offense, which does not include a failure to register); see also Juv.
Male, 564 U.S. at 938 (“[T]he duty to register under SORNA is not a consequence—

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
collateral or otherwise—of the District Court’s [sentence]. The statutory duty to
register is . . . an obligation that exists ‘independent’ of those conditions.”). And
because First In Trouble is a lifetime registrant in South Dakota, his duty to register
in other states “is not contingent upon the validity” of his tier classification at
sentencing. Juv. Male, 564 U.S. at 937 (citation omitted).
Correcting any error here “cannot save this case from mootness.” Id. But see
United States v. Coleman, 681 Fed. Appx. 413, 415–16 (5th Cir. 2017) (per curiam).
Dismissed as moot.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --