ability to travel from state to- state are not necessarily a violation of their right to travel.” Doe v. Moore, 410 F.3d 1337, 1348 (11th Cir.2005) (citing Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489, 499, 119 S.Ct. 1518, 143 L.Ed.2d 689 (1999)). In Shapiro v. Thompson, the Supreme Court held that “our constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement.” 394 U.S. 618, 629, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969) (emphasis added). Although the Act imposes some burdens on registrants who wish to travel for extended period of times, the burdens cannot be fairly characterized as substantial or unreasonable. S 2010) (<HOLDING>). Specifically, the Eleventh Circuit held that
holding statute did not create claim to set aside improper conveyance holding that inperson reporting requirements in iowa sex offender registry statute did not infringe on right to interstate travel holding that inperson reporting requirements in nebraska sex of fender registry statute did not create an actual barrier to travel holding that reporting requirements that are afforded immunity under  419 are not predicated on actual or conclusive evidence of abuse or maltreatment holding that the substantive provisions and reporting requirements of an unclaimed property law are valid as applied to national banks