United States v. Powers

562 F.3d 1342, 324 F. App'x 752, 2009 WL 775566
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
DecidedMarch 26, 2009
Docket08-12764
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 562 F.3d 1342 (United States v. Powers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Powers, 562 F.3d 1342, 324 F. App'x 752, 2009 WL 775566 (11th Cir. 2009).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Defendant Robert D. Powers was indicted for failing to register as required by the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 U.S.C. § 16913, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). Powers moved to dismiss the indictment, and, after hearing argument, the district court declared 18 U.S.C. § 2250 facially unconstitutional, dismissed the indictment, and ordered Powers released. United States v. Powers, 544 F.Supp.2d 1331, 1336 (M.D.Fla.2008). On appeal, the Government argues the district court erred in holding 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a) facially uncon *1344 stitutional as an invalid exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause power.

In United States v. Ambert, 561 F.3d 1202, No. 08-13139, 2009 WL 564677 (11th Cir. March 6, 2009), this Court held both the registration provisions set forth at 42 U.S.C. § 16913 and the failure to register offense set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a) do not violate the Commerce Clause. Id. at *8-9, 1211-12. We concluded § 2250 falls within Congress’s power to regulate “both the use of channels of interstate commerce and the instrumentalities of interstate commerce.” Id. at *8, 1211. We also concluded “the requirement that sex offenders register under § 16913 is necessary to track those offenders who move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.” Id. at *10,1212.

Ambert controls here. The district court erred in dismissing the indictment against Powers on the ground that SOR-NA exceeded Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause. Accordingly, we vacate the order of the district court and remand for reinstatement of the indictment.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

McGuire v. Strange
83 F. Supp. 3d 1231 (M.D. Alabama, 2015)
United States v. W.B.H
Eleventh Circuit, 2011
G.B. v. Rogers
703 F. Supp. 2d 724 (S.D. Ohio, 2010)
United States v. Myers
584 F.3d 1349 (Eleventh Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Ensminger
Ninth Circuit, 2009

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
562 F.3d 1342, 324 F. App'x 752, 2009 WL 775566, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-powers-ca11-2009.