Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michael David PETERS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-06-28
Citations: 533 F. App'x 485
Docket Number: No. 12-31160
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michael David PETERS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 533
Pages: 485–486

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michael David PETERS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-31160
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 28, 2013.
Cristina Walker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Earl M. Campbell, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
Betty Lee Marak, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Shreveport, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Defendant-Appellant Michael David Peters entered a conditional guilty plea to a charge of failure to register as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). Prior to his plea, Peters moved unsuccessfully to dismiss this count of the indictment based on his assertion that Congress violated the non-delegation doctrine by giving the Attorney General the power to decide whether the SORNA applied retroactively. Peters's conditional plea reserved his right to bring this issue on appeal.
In United States v. Johnson, 632 F.3d 912 (5th Cir.2011), the defendant raised an identical challenge to the SORNA. Reviewing de novo, we noted that the non-delegation doctrine argument had been rejected in United States v. Whaley, 577 F.3d 254, 260-64 (5th Cir.2009). Johnson, 632 F.3d at 917. Peters recognizes that his argument is foreclosed but presents the issue to preserve it for further appellate review in light of the dissent in Reynolds v. United States, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 975, 181 L.Ed.2d 935 (2012). As Peters concedes, we are bound by Johnson and Whaley. See United States v. Short, 181 F.3d 620, 624 (5th Cir.1999) (noting that a panel is bound by the precedent of previous panels absent an intervening Supreme Court case explicitly or implicitly overruling the prior precedent).
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.