Case ID: f-appx_540/html/0407-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Joshua SOUTHERLAND, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-30008
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 2, 2013.
    Josette Louise Cassiere, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Earl M. Campbell, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Betty Lee Marak, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Shreveport, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Joshua Southerland pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to failing to register as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). Prior to his guilty plea, South-erland moved unsuccessfully to dismiss his indictment on the ground that Congress improperly delegated to the Attorney General the power to decide whether SOR-NA’s registration requirements applied to sex offenders, like Southerland, who were convicted before SORNA went into effect. In his plea agreement, Southerland reserved the right to raise this issue on appeal.

We have addressed and rejected previous challenges to SORNA based on the nondelegation doctrine. See United States v. Johnson, 632 F.3d 912, 917 (5th Cir.2011); United States v. Whaley, 577 F.3d 254, 262-64 (5th Cir.2009). Southerland recognizes our precedent, but urges that Reynolds v. United States, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 975, 181 L.Ed.2d 935 (2012), calls into question its continued applicability. Reynolds, however, did not explicitly or implicitly overrule Johnson and Whaley; accordingly, we are bound by those decisions. See United States v. Short, 181 F.3d 620, 624 (5th Cir.1999).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.