UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

DARRELL EDWARD LYNCH, JR., 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 14-7057 

(D.C. No. 6:13-CR-00081-JHP-1) 

(E.D. Oklahoma) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before LUCERO, BACHARACH, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral 

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

submitted without oral argument. 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Darrell Edward Lynch, Jr., is a convicted sex offender who failed to keep his 

registration current both while living in Oklahoma and after he moved to Texas. He 

entered a conditional guilty plea, admitting that he violated the Sex Offender 

 *

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines 

of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for 

its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

April 8, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 14-7057 Document: 01019412033 Date Filed: 04/08/2015 Page: 1 
2 

Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a), but reserving four 

issues for appeal. Specifically, Mr. Lynch challenges his conviction on the grounds 

that SORNA violates the Commerce Clause, the Tenth Amendment, and the Ex Post 

Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution, as well as the nondelegation doctrine. 

Consistent with our recent precedent, we hold that SORNA is the product of a valid 

exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause power and that it does not violate the Tenth 

Amendment, Ex Post Facto Clause, or the nondelegation doctrine. We therefore 

affirm Mr. Lynch’s conviction. 

II. BACKGROUND 

Mr. Lynch pleaded guilty on March 15, 1996, in Texas to committing an 

aggravated sexual assault on a child under the age of fourteen. On July 27, 2006, 

Congress passed the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). On 

February 28, 2007, the U.S. Attorney General issued a rule extending the 

requirements of SORNA “to all sex offenders, including sex offenders convicted of 

the offense for which registration is required prior to the enactment of that Act.” 28 

C.F.R. § 72.3. Thus, although Mr. Lynch committed his sex offense before SORNA 

was enacted, he is required to comply with its registration requirements. 

After Mr. Lynch was released from prison in 2002, he lived in Florida for a 

number of years and then moved to Oklahoma. Mr. Lynch failed to update his sex 

offender registration to reflect his move to Oklahoma. When Mr. Lynch later moved 

to Texas, he again failed to update his sex offender registration. Mr. Lynch was 

subsequently indicted on one count of failing to register as a sex offender in violation 

Appellate Case: 14-7057 Document: 01019412033 Date Filed: 04/08/2015 Page: 2 
3 

of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), and (a)(3). Mr. Lynch moved to dismiss the 

indictment on the same grounds he now asserts on appeal. The district court denied 

Mr. Lynch’s motion to dismiss, and Mr. Lynch then entered a conditional guilty plea. 

Mr. Lynch now appeals from his conviction. 

III. DISCUSSION 

Mr. Lynch has made four constitutional arguments on appeal: that SORNA 

violates the Commerce Clause, the Tenth Amendment, the Ex Post Facto Clause, and 

the nondelegation doctrine. We review the district court’s denial of Mr. Lynch’s 

motion to dismiss the indictment on constitutional grounds de novo. See United 

States v. Brune, 767 F.3d 1009, 1015 (10th Cir. 2014). “As a part of our de novo 

review, however, we must presume that the statute is constitutional.” Id. (internal 

quotation marks omitted). We may “invalidate a congressional enactment only upon a 

plain showing that Congress has exceeded its constitutional bounds.” United States v. 

Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 607 (2000). 

Mr. Lynch first claims SORNA violates the Commerce Clause by regulating 

inactivity. Although Mr. Lynch acknowledges that we rejected a Commerce Clause 

challenge to SORNA in United States v. Hinckley, 550 F.3d 926, 939–40 (10th Cir. 

2008), abrogated on other grounds by Reynolds v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 975 

(2012), he argues our decision has been superseded by the Supreme Court’s decision 

in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566 (2012) 

(NFIB). After Mr. Lynch filed this appeal, we addressed NFIB’s effect on our 

Commerce Clause analysis in Hinckley. In United States v. White, we held that 

Appellate Case: 14-7057 Document: 01019412033 Date Filed: 04/08/2015 Page: 3 
4 

nothing in NFIB undermines our conclusion that SORNA is a permissible exercise of 

Congress’s Commerce Clause power to regulate the channels of interstate commerce 

and the persons or things in interstate commerce. No. 14-7031, slip. op. at 6–13 (10th 

Cir. Apr. 6, 2015). For the reasons stated in White, we reject Mr. Lynch’s claim that 

Congress exceeded its Commerce Clause power when it enacted SORNA. 

Second, Mr. Lynch claims SORNA violates the Tenth Amendment by 

directing state officials to implement a federally mandated sex offender registry. We 

also addressed this argument in White, holding that SORNA does not violate the 

Tenth Amendment. Id. at 14–17. There, we declined to make the same inference Mr. 

Lynch asks us to draw here: that, simply because Oklahoma has not substantially 

implemented SORNA and there is no federally run system for registering sex 

offenders, Oklahoma officials are unconstitutionally forced to administer the federal 

registration program. Id. at 15–16. Instead, we reject Mr. Lynch’s Tenth Amendment 

argument for the same reasons stated in White—nothing in SORNA compels a state 

officer to implement a federal registry. Id. at 16.

Third, Mr. Lynch claims SORNA’s requirement that pre-Act sex offenders 

register violates the Ex Post Facto Clause by increasing the punishment for a past 

offense. We upheld SORNA in the face of an Ex Post Facto Clause challenge in 

United States v. Lawrance, 548 F.3d 1329 (10th Cir. 2008). There we explained that 

SORNA is a regulatory statute and any criminal penalties attach only to future 

failures to register. Id. at 1332–36; see also White, No. 14-7031, slip op. at 13–14. 

One panel of this court cannot overrule the judgment of another panel “absent en 

Appellate Case: 14-7057 Document: 01019412033 Date Filed: 04/08/2015 Page: 4 
5 

banc consideration . . . [or] an intervening Supreme Court decision that is contrary to 

or invalidates our previous analysis.” United States v. Brooks, 751 F.3d 1204, 1209 

(10th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). Mr. Lynch does not claim that 

either exception to our horizontal stare decisis rule is present. We therefore reject his 

ex post facto challenge to SORNA. 

Fourth, Mr. Lynch claims his conviction should be vacated because Congress 

unconstitutionally delegated to the Attorney General the authority to determine 

whether pre-Act sex offenders must comply with SORNA. But Mr. Lynch’s argument 

is again precluded by a recent decision of this court. After the parties finished 

briefing this case, we addressed whether Congress constitutionally delegated this 

question to the Attorney General. In United States v. Nichols, 775 F.3d 1225 (10th 

Cir. 2014), we upheld SORNA in the face of a nondelegation challenge because we 

concluded that Congress had laid down an intelligent principle governing the 

Attorney General’s decision. Id. at 1230–32. For the reasons stated in Nichols, we 

hold Congress did not unconstitutionally delegate its legislative powers to the 

attorney general under SORNA. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

 We AFFIRM Mr. Lynch’s conviction for failure to register in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). 

Entered for the Court 

Carolyn B. McHugh 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 14-7057 Document: 01019412033 Date Filed: 04/08/2015 Page: 5