Opinion ID: 2656507
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: conclusion

Text: We hold that (1) McGee’s sentence is substantively reasonable, (2) the challenged special conditions are reasonably related to the goals of supervised release when carefully explaining its reasons for imposing the special conditions and how they related to the goals of supervised release. 34 United States v. Johnson, 632 F.3d 912, 917 (5th Cir. 2011). 35 Id. 36 United States v. Whaley, 577 F.3d 254, 263-64 (5th Cir. 2009). 37 Reynolds v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 975 (2012). 38United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 145 (5th Cir. 2013) (“Under our rule of orderliness, only an intervening change in the law (such as by a Supreme Court case) permits a subsequent panel to decline to follow a prior Fifth Circuit precedent.”) (citing Jacobs v. Nat’l Drug Intelligence Ctr., 548 F.3d 375, 378 (5th Cir. 2008)). 39United States v. Southerland, __ F. App’x __, 2013 WL 5461838, at  (5th Cir. Oct. 2, 2013) (unpublished) (“Reynolds, however, did not explicitly or implicitly overrule Johnson and Whaley; accordingly, we are bound by those decisions.”). 13 Case: 13-30691 Document: 00512559224 Page: 14 Date Filed: 03/12/2014 No. 13-30691 release, and (3) SORNA does not violate the non-delegation doctrine. The district court’s sentence and judgment are, therefore, AFFIRMED. 14