### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 11-60696 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. ROBERT A. DAVIS, III, also known as Robert Arthur Davis, III, also known as Robert A. Davis, also known as Robert Davis, also known as Robert Lee Davis, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 4:11-CR-7-1

Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Robert A. Davis, III, 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), r e s e rving his right to appeal the chall e n g e s t o SORNA made in his motion to dismiss the indictment. The district court sentenced Davis to 37 months in prison to be followed by a life term of supervised release. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D June19 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-60696 Document: 00511890964 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/19/2012No. 11-60696

On appeal, Davis 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 C l a u s e ; (2) the retroactive application of SORNA violates the Ex Post Facto Clause; (3) SORNA violates the T e nth Amendment by requiring state officials t o administer federal law; (4) Congress violated the non-delegation doctrine by giving the Attorney General the power to decide whether SORNA applied retroactiv e ly ; (5) SORNA’s registration requirement violates the Commerce Clause by making failure to register a federal crime; (6) regulations issued by th e Attorney General were given without notice and comment in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA); and (7) SORNA does not apply to him because Mississippi has not yet adopted it. Davis’s complaints as to the notice and APA defic i encies, as well as his reliance on the holding in Reynolds v. United States , 132 S. Ct. 975 (2012), are unavailing as he traveled in inter s t ate commerce after the final regulations were issued, which were published with proper notice and comment rulemaking. See 73 Fed. Reg. 38031-01. His remaining claims are foreclosed by o ur opinion in United States v. Johnson , 632 F.3d 912 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 132 S. Ct

. 135 (2011). Davis asks us to recons i d e r the rulings in Johnson , and alternatively, he presents these issues to pr e serve them for further appellate review. This panel may not reconsider the court’s preced e nt absent an overriding Supreme Court decision, a change in statutory law, or en banc consideration. See United States v. Zuniga-Salinas , 952 F.2d 876, 877 (5th Cir. 1 9 9 2 ) ( e n banc). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 11-60696 Document: 00511890964 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/19/2012