US v. Yelloweagle, -- F.3d --, 2011 WL 1632095 (10th Cir. 5/2/11)(CO) - 18 § 2250(a)(2)(A), the criminal statute enforcing compliance with the sex offender registration requirement imposed under 42 U.S.C. § 16913, is rationally related to the registration scheme and constitutes a valid exercise of congressional authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause. Mr. Yelloweagle's conviction for failing to register is consequently affirmed.

Selsor v. Workman, -- F.3d --, 2011 WL 1632101 (10th Cir. 5/2/11)(OK) - affirmance of death penalty imposed after retrial. After the Oklahoma courts modified his death sentence to life imprisonment, Selsor successfully attacked his conviction, resulting in a retrial in which he was resentenced to death. COA holds Selsor had fair warning that his murder conviction could result in the death penalty and the state court's rejection of ex post facto and due process challenges to the reimposition of the death penalty was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law. Selsor was also not entitled to habeas relief based on double jeopardy. The initial imposition of the death penalty was based on a murder statute that mandated the death penalty upon conviction of first degree murder and Selsor's death sentence was modified to life imprisonment as a result of a ruling that that statute was unconstitutional. There was no determination that the prosecution failed to establish the death penalty was warranted under the circumstances. Error in instructing the jury on the elements of the amended first degree murder statute rather than the statute as it was at the time of Selsor's crime was harmless and had no substantial and injurious effect on either the guilt or penalty findings. Selsor was not entitled to relief based on equal protection because, in light of the invalidation of his convictions and sentence and grant of a new trial, he was not similarly situated to those whose sentences were modified when the OK death penalty statute was ruled unconstitutional. The COA rejects Selsor's vindictive prosecution claim on the ground the state court reasonably concluded he showed no actual vindictiveness. The prosecution's sentencing arguments did not amount to prosecutorial misconduct. And while it was improper to permit victims' family members to comment on the appropriate sentence, that did not cause actual prejudice.