United States v. James Doyle

438 F. App'x 288

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: August 16, 2011
• Docket: 10-60905
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

James Doyle pleaded guilty, pursuant to a conditional guilty plea, to failure to register as a convicted sex offender in violation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a), reserving his right to appeal the challenges to SORNA made in his motion to dismiss the indictment. Doyle was sentenced to 16 months of imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and a $1,000 fine.

Raising the same arguments1 that he made in his motion to dismiss, Doyle argues that (1) he was never advised of the registration requirements of SORNA, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 16917, in violation of the Due Process Clause; (2) the retroactive application of SORNA violates the Ex Post Facto Clause; (3) SORNA violates the Tenth Amendment by requiring state officials to administer federal law; (4) Congress violated the non-delegation doctrine by giving the Attorney General the power to decide whether SORNA applied retroactively; (5) SORNA’s registration requirement violates the Commerce Clause by making failure to register a federal crime; (6) regulations issued by the Attorney General were given without notice and comment in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA); and (7) SORNA does not apply to Doyle because Mississippi has not yet adopted it.

Doyle’s complaints as to the notice and APA deficiencies are unavailing as he traveled in interstate commerce after the final regulations were issued, which were published with proper notice and comment rulemaking. His remaining claims are foreclosed by our opinion in United States v. Johnson, 632 F.3d 912 (5th Cir.2011), petition for cert. filed (May 3, 2011) (No. 10-10330). Doyle asks us to reconsider the rulings in Johnson, and alternatively, he presents these issues to preserve them for further appellate review. This panel may not reconsider the court’s precedent absent an overriding Supreme Court decision, a change in statutory law, or en banc consideration. See United States v. Zunigar-Salinas, 952 F.2d 876, 877 (5th Cir.1992) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.