# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 2- 27 67

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.
Ada m Ray Fern an de z
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 2- 27 74

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.
Jo na th on Pat ric k C ur ry
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 2- 27 84

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.
W il li am Earl M effo rd

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 2- 27 87

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.
Terren t Al le n C hr on is te r
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 2- 33 58

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.
Jo hn Sh arp
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __App eal fro m Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Har ris on

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Marc h 1 1, 2 01 3 Fil ed : Ap ril 1, 2 01 3 [Pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re MUR PHY, SMITH, an d GRUENDER, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

In th es e co ns ol id at ed ap pe al s f r o m t h e W es te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s th e ap pe ll an ts al l ch al le ng e th e co ns ti tu ti on al it y of a pr ov is io n of th e Sex Offen de r Reg is tra ti on an d Not ifi cat io n Act (SORNA), 42 U.S.C. § 16 90 1 et se q, un de r whi ch th ey were c on vi ct ed

. App el la nt s arg ue th at SORNA vi ol at es th e no nd el eg at io n do ct rin e of th e Uni te d S ta te s C on st it ut io n b y gi vi ng th e Att or ne y Gen eral au th or it y to de te rm in e it s ap pl ic ab il it y to se x of fen de rs co nv ic te d be fo re th e st at ut e's

en act m en t. The di st ric t co ur ts u p h e l d th e co ns ti tu ti on al it y of th e Act. The 1 de fen da nt s ap pe al , and we affi rm

.

SORNA r eq ui res pe rs on s co nv ic te d of se x cri m es to reg is te r an d up da te in fo rm at io n ab ou t th ei r whe reab ou ts , e m pl oym en t, an d ot he r pe rs on al in fo rm at io n. Fo r pe rs on s who se co nv ic ti on s pr ed at e th e pa ss ag e of SORNA, th e Act sp eci fie s th at th e “ Att or ne y Gen e r a l s h a l l ha ve th e au th or it y to sp eci fy th e ap pl ic ab il it y of th e req ui rem en ts of th is su bc ha pt er.” 42 U.S.C. § 1 6 9 1 3 ( d )

. Alt ho ug h SORNA was p as se d in 20 06 , th e Att or ne y Gen eral di d no t ex pl ic it ly ap pl y it s reg is tra t i o n

The Hon or ab le J u d g e R ob ert Dawso n, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 W es te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s, an d th e Hon or ab le Ju dg e Ji m m Larry Hen dr en , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s. -3

-req ui rem en ts to pr een act m en t of fen de rs un ti l 2 0 0 7

. Thi s res ul te d in co nf li ct in g de ci si on s by th e co ur ts as to whe th er th e Act ap pl ie d to pr een act m en t of fen de rs fro m th e da te of i ts en act m en t in 20 06 or on ly aft er th e Att or ne y Gen eral ’s de ci si on in 20 07

. Thi s co ur t ha d de ci de d th at th e Act ap pl ie d to SORNA of fen de rs fro m th e da te of it s en act m en t. Uni te d St at es v. May, 53 5 F

. 3 d 91 2, 91 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). Su bs eq ue nt ly th e Su pr em e Co ur t ru le d to th e co nt rary, ho ld in g th at SORNA di d no t ap pl y to pr een ac t men t o f f en de rs un ti l su ch ti m e as th e Att or ne y Gen eral “ va li dl y sp eci fie s th at th e Act's reg is tra ti on pr ov is io ns ap pl y to th em ,” whi ch h e di d no t do

un ti l 2 00 7. Re y no ld s v . Uni te d S ta te s, 1 32 S.Ct . 97 5, 9 80 (20 12 ).

A pp el la nt s ha ve be en co nv ic te d of fai li ng to reg is te r un de r SORNA; t h e i r
o r ig in al se x of

fen se s al l pr ed at ed th e st at ut e's en act m en t. The y arg ue t h a t t h e § 16 91 3( d) gr an t of po wer to th e Att or ne y Gen eral to de te rm in e th e la w's ap pl ic ab il it y to pr ee n act m en t of

fen de rs vi ol at ed th e no nd el eg at io n do ct rin e of th e Uni te d St at es Co ns t i t u t i o n. Pri or to Reynol ds , we ha d reject ed th is arg um en t be cau se we
u n d e r s to od SORNA's reg is tra ti on req ui rem en ts to ap pl y to su ch of fen de rs ev e n wit ho ut an y act io n by th e Att or ne y Gen eral

. App el la nt s la ck ed st an di ng at th at ti m e to rai se th e qu es ti on no w be fo re th e co ur t. May, 53 5 F.3 d at 92 1. Afte r Reynol ds

was de ci de d, th e Su p r e me C o u rt rem an de d se ve ral si m il ar cas es fo r ou r co ur t to

co ns id er on th e m eri ts

. W e in tu rn rem an de d th em to th e di st ric t co ur ts in whi ch th ei r
cas es or ig in at ed

. The pr es id in g di st ric t co ur ts reject ed th e no nd el eg at io n ch al le ng es , an d t he de fen da nt s ap pe al

.

W e rev ie w co ns ti tu ti on al ch al le ng es de no vo

. Uni te d St at es v. Howel l, 50 5 F. 3 d 96 0, 96 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). The no nd el eg at io n do ct rin e ari se s fro m Arti cl e I,

se ct io n I of th e Co ns ti tu ti on , whi ch ve st s Co ng res s wit h al l le gi sl at iv e po wers

. Thi s ha s bee n in te rp ret ed by th e Su pr em e Co ur t to m ean th at Co ng res s can no t “ tra ns fer”

or “ de le ga te ” it s au th or it y to en act le gi sl at io n t o a no th er br an ch

. See Pan am a Ref. Co

. v. Ry an , 29 3 U.S. 38 8, 42 1 (1 93 5)

. Co ng res s can ne ve rth el es s de le ga te au th or it y to th e ex ecu ti ve br an ch to im pl em en t en act ed le gi sl at io n, se e U.S. Co ns t. Art. II, § 3,

-4

-if it pr ov id es an “ in te ll ig ib le pr in ci pl e” to th e de le ge e. Mi st ret ta v. Uni te d St at es , 48 8

U.S. 36 1, 37 2 (1 98 9)

. So lo ng as Co ng res s “ cl earl y de li ne at es th e ge ne ral po li cy , th e pu bl ic ag en cy whi ch is to ap pl y it , an d th e bo un da rie s of th e de le ga te d au th or it y ,” it ha s pr ov id ed an “ in te ll ig ib le pr in ci pl e.” Am

. Po wer & Lig ht Co

. v. Sec. & Exc h. Co m m ’n, 32 9 U.S. 9 0, 1 05 (19 46 ).

The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s up he ld de le ga ti on s w h e n t h e "i nt el li gi bl e pr in ci pl e" g ui di ng th e ad m in is tra to r was to se t "fa ir an d eq ui ta bl e" pr ic es , Yak us v. Un i t e d St at es , 32 1 U.S. 41 4, 42 6 (1 94 4) , an d whe n th e FCC reg ul at es br oa dc as t li cen se s "as pu bl ic in te res t, co nv en ie nc e, or ne ces si ty" req ui re, Nat’l Bro ad

. Co

. v. Uni te d St at es , 31 9 U.S. 19 0, 22 5– 2 2 6 ( 1 9 4 3 )

. In de ed , wit h th e ex cep ti on of two cas es in 19 35 , Pan am a Ref. Co ., 29 3 U.S. at 38 8, A.L.A. Sch ech te r Po ul try Co rp

. v. Uni te d St at es , 29 5 U.S. 49 5 (1 93 5) , th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha s un ifo rm ly reject ed ev ery no nd el eg at io n ch al le ng e it ha s co ns id ered . See Mi st ret ta , 48 8 U.S. at 37 3.

Thi s co ur t rece nt ly co ns id ered an d reject ed an id en ti cal ch al le ng e to SORNA in Uni te d St at es v. Kue hl , 20 13 U.S. App

. LEXIS 33 73 (8 th Ci r. Feb ru ary 19 , 20 13 ). W e co nc lu de d th at SORNA’s br oa d po li cy st at em en t th at it was de si gn ed “ to pr ot ect th e pu bl ic fro m se x of

fen de rs an d of

fen de rs ag ai ns t ch il dr en ” was “ s u f f i c ie nt to pr ov id e an in te ll ig ib le pr in ci pl e fo r de le ga ti on .” Id

. at *5 –6 (ci ti ng 42 U.S.C. § 16 90 1)

. Thi s gu id in g pr in ci pl e co m pa res fav or ab ly to ot he r po li cy s t a t e men ts whi c h th e Co ur t ha s pr ev io us ly up he ld as pr ov id in g “ in te ll ig ib le pr in ci pl es .” See, e.g ., Nat’l Bro ad

. Co ., 31 9 U.S. at 22 6. W e al so ob se rv ed in Kue hl th at SORNA’s d e l eg at io n is rel at iv el y na rro w, on ly pe rm it ti ng th e Att or ne y Gen eral to de te r mi n e whe th er SORNA’s req ui rem en ts ap pl y to of fen de rs who se co nv ic ti on s pr ed at e it s
en act m en t. Thi s is a co ns id erab ly m or e l i mi t e d an d na rro w qu es ti on th an , fo r
ex am pl e, Co ng res s’ d eci si on to al lo w t he Uni te d St at es Sen te nc in g Co mm is si on to

crea te fed eral se nt en ci ng gu id el in es

. See Kue hl , 20 13 U.S. App

. at *6 –7 ; Mi st ret ta , 48 8 U.S. at 37 4– 79

.

-5

-SORNA’s rel at iv el y na rro w de le ga ti on of au th or it y to th e Att or ne y Gen eral is

gu id e d by an in te ll ig ib le pr in ci pl e an d is co ns is te nt wit h th e req ui rem en ts of th e
no nd el eg at io n do ct rin e. Mo reo ve r, we rem ai n bo un d by our ea rl ie r de ci si on in Kue hl

. W e th us affi rm

th e d is tri ct co ur t d eci si on s u nd er re vi ew he re.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-6

-