Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fred Lawrence DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-11-20
Citations: 585 F. App'x 213
Docket Number: No. 14-4285
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fred Lawrence DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 585
Pages: 213–214

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fred Lawrence DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-4285.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 18, 2014.
Decided: Nov. 20, 2014.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
This appeal is before this court following resentencing after remand. Fred Lawrence Davis now challenges his conviction for failing to register and update his registration as required by the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act ("SOR-NA"), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a) (2012). Davis argues that Congress exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause when it enacted SORNA. As Davis concedes, his argument is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Gould, 568 F.3d 459, 470-75 (4th Cir.2009). Because "a panel of this court cannot overrule, explicitly or implicitly, the precedent set by a prior panel of this court," United States v. Rivers, 595 F.3d 558, 564 n. 3 (4th Cir.2010) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted), we conclude that Davis's challenge to the constitutionality of SOR-NA must fail.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.