S.Ct. at 731-32, Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 58-60, 88 S.Ct. 697, 708-09, 19 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) (refusing to impose such restrictions where statute evidenced Congressional intent that information obtained as a consequence of registration requirements be provided to interested prosecuting authorities). Defendant has also moved that either count 2 or 3 and either count 4 or 5 be dismissed as multiplex. In paragraphs 13 and 14 of his affidavit in support of the motion to dismiss, defendant paraphrases the indictment as follows: counts 2 and 4 charge defendant with possession of an unregistered firearm; counts 3 and 5 charge failure to register the firearm. Were this in fact the case, the indictment would be multiplex. Cf. Haynes, supra, 390 U.S. at 90-95, 88 S.Ct. at 726-29 (<HOLDING>). However, defendant’s paraphrase of the
holding that for sentencing purposes the government does not need to allege a defendants prior conviction or prove the fact of a prior conviction where that fact is not an element of the present crime holding that a conviction under the registration clause is not properly distinguishable from a conviction for failure to register for purposes of fifth amendment analysis holding that a conviction vacated by operation of a state rehabilitative statute still constitutes a conviction for immigration purposes holding that rights in a government benefits program were not vested property for purposes of the takings clause of the fifth amendment holding evidence was legally insufficient to support conviction for violation of sex offender registration requirement