“it seems incorrect to claim that Goodwin committed his failure to register ‘against a minor.’ ” Id. The court explained that applying the term “ ‘perpetrated against a minor’ to any failure to register stretches this term past its breaking point.’ ” Id. We agree. In Segura’s case, there was no specific victim attributed to his failure to register. Therefore, the crime was not perpetrated against a minor and should not qualify as a sex offense. C. Having concluded that the district court erred in finding that failure to register is a sex offense, we now discuss whether that error was plain — that is, whether the error was clear or obvious. To determine whether the district court’s error was plain, we examine the state of the law at the time of appeal. Escalante-Reyes, 689 F.3d at 423 (<HOLDING>). Segura filed his initial brief in this appeal
holding that appellate courts analyze plain error by reference to the law as of the time the appeal is decided rather than the extant law at the time of the disputed trial court ruling holding that where the law is unsettled at the time of trial but settled by the time of appeal the plainness of the error should be judged by the law at the time of appeal holding that clearly established federal law as determined by the supreme court under aedpa is the law at the time of the statecourt adjudication on the merits not at the time the conviction becomes final holding that the relevant time is the time of the employment decision holding that statutory good time credits must be calculated under the law in effect at the time of resentencing after an appeal of the sentence is determined