United States v. Tammy Payton

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Tammy Payton

518 F. App'x 201

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 15, 2013

Docket12-4980

StatusUnpublished

This text of 518 F. App'x 201 (United States v. Tammy Payton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth 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. Tammy Payton, 518 F. App'x 201 (4th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tammy L. Payton was convicted of failing to register as a sex offender in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2250(a) (West Supp. 2012) and was sentenced to twelve months of imprisonment. She challenges her conviction on appeal arguing that the Attorney General’s issuance of an interim rule and regulations, making the criminal provisions of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”) retroactive, violates the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) because the regulations were issued without a notice and comment period as required under the APA. See 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)-(d) (2006).

Payton contends that the district court erred in denying her motion to dismiss the indictment on this basis. We review de novo the denial of a motion to dismiss the indictment, where the denial depends solely on questions of law. United States v. Hatcher, 560 F.3d 222, 224 (4th Cir.2009).

We note, as Payton concedes, that we have, in published authority, rejected similar Ex Post Facto, Commerce Clause, due process, and APA challenges to SORNA. See United States v. Gould, 568 F.3d 459 (4th Cir.2009). A panel of this court cannot overrule, explicitly or implicitly, the precedent set by a prior panel of this court. Only the Supreme Court or this court sitting en banc may do that. Scoffs Co. v. United Indus. Corp., 315 F.3d 264, 271 n. 2 (4th Cir.2002). Finally, we do not find that the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Reynolds v. United States, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 975, 181 L.Ed.2d 935 (2012), alters the validity of our opinion in Gould. Accordingly, we conclude that Payton’s APA challenges to SORNA lack merit and we affirm her conviction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court, and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tammy L. Payton was convicted of failing to register as a sex offender in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2250(a) (West Supp. 2012) and was sentenced to twelve months of imprisonment. She challenges her conviction on appeal arguing that the Attorney General’s issuance of an interim rule and regulations, making the criminal provisions of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”) retroactive, violates the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) because the regulations were issued without a notice and comment period as required under the APA. See 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)-(d) (2006).

Payton contends that the district court erred in denying her motion to dismiss the indictment on this basis. We review de novo the denial of a motion to dismiss the indictment, where the denial depends solely on questions of law. United States v. Hatcher, 560 F.3d 222, 224 (4th Cir.2009).

We note, as Payton concedes, that we have, in published authority, rejected similar Ex Post Facto, Commerce Clause, due process, and APA challenges to SORNA. See United States v. Gould, 568 F.3d 459 (4th Cir.2009). A panel of this court cannot overrule, explicitly or implicitly, the precedent set by a prior panel of this court. Only the Supreme Court or this court sitting en banc may do that. Scoffs Co. v. United Indus. Corp., 315 F.3d 264, 271 n. 2 (4th Cir.2002). Finally, we do not find that the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Reynolds v. United States, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 975, 181 L.Ed.2d 935 (2012), alters the validity of our opinion in Gould. Accordingly, we conclude that Payton’s APA challenges to SORNA lack merit and we affirm her conviction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court, and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

518 F. App'x 201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-tammy-payton-ca4-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack