violation’ ” that caused the public no actual harm. 551 F.3d 875, 889 (9th Cir.2008) (quoting People v. Carmony, 127 Cal.App.4th 1066, 26 Cal.Rptr.3d 365, 372 (2005)). Windham’s case is far more akin to Crosby than to Gonzalez. Windham left California for a year and a half, in deliberate violation of his parole and without notifying law enforcement. When he returned to California, he lived out of his car and altered his appearance in order to avoid contact with the police. Windham, in other words, did not merely commit “passive” violations of the registration laws; rather, he actively and intentionally evaded police surveillance and, in so doing, posed a threat to the public. See Crosby, 678 F.3d at 794; In re Coley, 55 Cal.4th 524, 146 Cal.Rptr.3d 382, 283 P.3d 1252, 1272 (2012) (<HOLDING>). His offenses of conviction were therefore
holding evidence was legally insufficient to support conviction for violation of sex offender registration requirement holding that the requirement of sex offender registration for the defendants conviction of false imprisonment of a minor was not cruel and unusual punishment and did not violate substantive or procedural due process holding that a failure to update sexoffender registration should not be considered a minor or technical offense when committed as part of a more general course of conduct that demonstrates a deliberate general unwillingness to comply with the sex offender registration requirements holding that the inclusion of aggravated kidnapping of a minor by a nonparent in the illinois sex offender registration act was not violative of due process regardless of whether the offenders conduct was sexually motivated holding that sex offender registration and notification do not constitute punishment