United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 12-3295

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Steve Ray Walls

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

____________

 Submitted: April 8, 2013

 Filed: May 6, 2013

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Steve Ray Walls wasindicted for failing to register as a sex offender under the

Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA” or “Act”). See 18 U.S.C.
§ 2250(a), (c); 42 U.S.C. §§ 16911, 16913. The district court denied Walls’s motion

1

to dismiss the indictment on several grounds. Walls entered a conditional guilty plea,

reserving his right to appeal that denial. We affirm his conviction. 

Walls pled guilty to attempted aggravated sexual battery in Wyandotte County,

Kansas, on June 26, 1995. At the time of his conviction, the government informed

Walls of his duty to register as a sex offender in Kansas. Walls had several prior state

convictions for failure to comply with Kansas’s registration requirements. On

January 24, 2009, Walls was arrested in Kansas City, Missouri, on outstanding

Wyandotte County, Kansas warrants. In a January 27, 2009 interview with the United

States Marshals Service, Walls admitted that he knew he was required to register as

a sex offender in Missouri but that he had not done so. He was released to Kansas,

convicted under Kansas’s Offender Registration Act, and placed on probation. 

In December 2009, his Kansas probation officer attempted to complete a home

visit at Walls’s previously reported Kansas City, Kansas address but was unable to

locate him there. Authorities later located Walls in Kansas City, Missouri, and he

reported staying at the City Union Mission in Kansas City, Missouri. Walls had not

registered as a sex offender in Missouri. A grand jury indicted Walls on one count

of violating SORNA from January 27, 2009, to July 13, 2010. 

On appeal, Walls raises the same arguments rejected by the district court:

(1) he had no duty to register under SORNA because he was not specifically informed

of the requirement prior to the charged offense, (2) his conviction for a SORNA

violation violates the Ex Post Facto Clause, (3) Congress violated the nondelegation

doctrine when it allowed the Attorney General to establish SORNA’s applicability to

sex offenders convicted before passage of the Act, and (4) the Attorney General

The Honorable Greg Kays, United States District Judge for the Western 1

District of Missouri. 

-2-
violated the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) when he issued an interim

regulation declaring SORNA to be retroactively applicable to those convicted before

the Act passed without abiding by the APA’s notice-and-comment requirements. 

Each of Walls’s grounds for appeal involves claims of statutory construction

or constitutional error, and thus we review his appeal de novo. See Royal v. Kautzky,

375 F.3d 720, 722 (8th Cir. 2004). We are bound by our prior precedent, and each

of Walls’s challenges has been previously rejected by this Court. See United States

v. Baccam, 562 F.3d 1197, 1199-1200 (8th Cir. 2009) (holding that an offender need

only be notified of state law registration requirements to sustain a conviction under

section 2250(a)); United States v. Waddle, 612 F.3d 1027, 1029 (8th Cir. 2010)

(holding SORNA does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause because it does not

punish defendants for having been convicted of a crime but instead punishes sex

offenders who travel in interstate commerce after SORNA’s enactment and who fail

to register as required by SORNA); United States v. Kuehl, 706 F.3d 917, 920 (8th

Cir. 2013) (holding the congressional grant of authority to the Attorney General in

42 U.S.C. § 16913(d) to be constitutionally valid because Congress had set forth an

intelligible principle to guide in the exercise of the granted authority); United States

v. Knutson, 680 F.3d 1021, 1023 (8th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (holding that defendant

could not challenge whether interim rule violated the APA’s notice-and-comment

requirement when he pled guilty to violating SORNA for a period of time after the

final guidelines, which did go through the notice-and-comment process, became

effective on August 1, 2008). 

We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. 

______________________________

-3-