NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 1 3

- 4130

_____________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. BARRY W. HALL, JR. ,

Appellant

_____________ Appeal from th e United States District Court f or the District of Delaware ( D.C. Crim
. No. 1 : 1 3

- cr - 00005

- 001 ) District Judge: Honorable Richard G. Andrews

______________ Submitted U nder Third Circuit L
. A
. R
. 34.1(a)

April 30 , 201 4

______________ Before: CHAGARES , GREENAWAY, J R
. , and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges
.

(Opinion Filed: May 8, 2014 )

______________ OPINION

______________ VANASKIE , Circuit Judge
. Appellant Barry Hall entered a c onditional plea of guilty to failing to register as a sex offender, in violation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”), Pub. L. No. 109

- 248, 120 Stat. 587, 590

– 611 (2006) (codified primarily at2

18 U.S.C. § 2250 (a) & 42 U.S.C. § 16901

– 16962 .). Under the terms of the plea, Hall reserved the right to appeal the District Court’s denial of his motion to dismiss , which was predicated on the theory that § 16913(d) of SORNA vi olates the nondelegation doctrine
. Because that argument is foreclosed by our recent opinion in United States v. Cooper , No. 13

- 2324, 2014 WL 1386816, at *1 (3d Cir. Apr
. 10, 2014) , w e will affirm the District Court ’s denial of Hall ’s moti on . I. The fac ts essential to our decision can be briefly stated. In 1993, in the S tate of Delaware, Hall was convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse in the third degree
. (PSR ¶ 9. ) I n 1999, again in Delaware, Hall was convicted of rape in the fourth degree
. (PSR ¶ 10
. ) Although both convictions preceded the enactment of SORNA in 2006, later administrative rules promulgated by the Attorney General applied SORNA’s requirements to individuals, such as Hall, who se qualifying sex - offense convict ions predat ed the statut e. See Applicability of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, 75 Fed. Reg. 81 853

- 01 (Dec. 29, 2010)
. In July 2011, Hall moved to West Virginia , where he enrolled in the West Virginia sex offender registry
. (PSR ¶ 13
. ) In October 2012, West Virginia authorities learned that Hall no longer resided at the address he had provided to them. (PSR ¶ 18
. ) On November 18, 2012, police arrested Hall in Delaware , where he was again residing
. (PSR ¶ 2 3 .) Hall failed to re

- register as a sex offender in Delaware at any point between3

July 2011 and the date of his arrest. (PSR ¶ 2 4
. ) On January 22 , 20 1 3 , Hall was indicted by a federal grand jury on one count of failing to register as a sex offender, in violation of 1 8 U.S.C. § 2250(a). On April 3, 201 3, Hall filed a motion t o dismiss the indictment , which the District Court denied in an order filed April 23, 2013
. On June 10, 2013, Hall entered a conditional p lea of guilty to the indictment. On October 11, 2013 , the District Court imposed a sentence of 33 months ’ imprisonment , 5 years of supervised release , and a $ 1 00 special assessment
. Hall filed a timely not ice of appeal
. II. The Dis trict Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291
. We exercise plenary review over a challenge to the constitutionality of a statute
. United States v. Pendleton , 636 F.3d 78, 82 (3d Cir. 2011)
. III. Hall’s sole argument on appeal is that § 16913(d) of SORNA 1 violates the non

delegation doctrine, which requires Congress to provide, at a minimum, an “intelligible principle” to guide t he Attorney General in the exercise of delegated rulemaking authority. Touby v. United States , 500 U.S. 160, 165 (1991) (quoting J.W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States , 276 U.S. 394, 409 (1928)) . We held th is matter C
. A
. V . pending

1 That provision states : “ T he A ttorney General shall have the authority to specify the applicability of the requirements of this subchapter to sex offenders convicted before [ July 27, 2006 ] . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 16913(d).4

our decision in Unite d States v. Cooper , No. 13

- 2324 , which, the parties agree , presented “the same non

- delegation challenge” pressed here by Hall. Appellant’ s Br. at 12; see also Appellee’s Br. at 5. We have since decided the Cooper case . See No. 13

- 2324, 2014 WL 1386816 , at *1 (3d Cir. Apr
. 10, 2014)
. Like our sister circuits which have considered the issue, w e rejected th e non - delegation challenge to SORNA
. I d. at * 9 n.6 (citing United States v. Goodwin , 717 F.3d 511, 516

– 17 (7th Cir.) , cert. denied , __ U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 334 (2013) ; United States v. Kuehl , 706 F.3d 917, 919

– 20 (8th Cir. 2013); United States v. Parks , 698 F.3d 1, 7

– 8 (1st Cir. 2012) , cert. denied , __ U.S. __, 133 S. Ct. 2021 (2013) ; United States v. Felts , 674 F.3d 599, 606 (6th Cir. 2012) ; United Stat es v. Rogers , 468 F. App’x 359, 362 (4th Cir. 2012) (not precedential); United States v. Guzman , 591 F.3d 83, 92

– 93 (2d Cir.) , cert. denied , 130 S. Ct. 3487 (2010) ; United States v. Whaley , 577 F.3d 254, 263

– 64 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Ambert , 561 F.3d 1202, 1213

– 14 (11th Cir. 2009) ). Accordingly, the District Court was correct in denyin g the motion to dismiss
. I V
. For the foregoing reasons, w e will affirm the District Court’s judgment entered on October 11 , 201 3
.