that the passage of SORNA created brand new sex offender registration requirements; such that anything done prior to the passage of SORNA, prior to the promulgation of SORNA regulations and/or prior to Maine implementing those regulations does not fall under the purview of SORNA and cannot be subject to prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 2250. Thus, under Defendant’s view, Gagnon and all sex offenders who were subject to sex offender registration requirements prior to the passage of SORNA are not subject to any of SORNA’s requirements or penalties until all of the improvements contemplated by SORNA are fully implemented. In the Court’s assessment, SORNA does not create such a brave new world. See, e.g., United States v. Fuller, No. 5:07-cr-462, 2008 WL 2437869 at *2 (N.D.N.Y. June 13, 2008) (<HOLDING>); United States v. David, No. 1:08CR11, 2008 WL
holding it was not impossible for a defendant to register pursuant to sorna simply because state had not completed implementation of sorna and collecting cases with similar holdings holding that the general assembly intended to provide the tax collecting authorities with alternative methods for collecting taxes holding that the federal register notice requirements do not apply to federal criminal statutes holding that a school was not a state actor even though it had to comply with many state regulations to be eligible for state funding and almost all of its students had been referred to it by the state holding that an individual who is required to register as a sex offender is not in custody