Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 11-5098
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (2:10-cr-00182-RGD-TEM-1)
Submitted:
June 1, 2012
THACKER,
Decided:
Circuit
Judges,
and
HAMILTON,
PER CURIAM:
Joe Bob Clark, Jr., appeals his conviction and thirtymonth
sentence
traveling
update
in
following
interstate
his
guilty
commerce
registration,
as
and
plea
to
failing
required
by
one
to
the
count
of
register
or
Sex
Offender
SORNA,
by
Congress
impermissibly
Attorney
General,
(1)
violated
delegating
namely,
the
the
non-delegation
legislative
functions
discretion
to
to
determine
like
Clark,
who
were
convicted
prior
to
the
Acts
and affirm.
Prior
to
entering
conditional
guilty
plea,
Clark
the
motion.
We
review
de
novo
district
courts
United States v.
of
government.
United
another
branch
delegation
of
doctrine
States
Ambert,
561
F.3d
government
as
v.
long
as
does
not
Congress
offend
has
the
non-
delineated
an
Even
general
legislative
directive
is
to
apply
authority.
it,
and
the
boundaries
of
th[e]
delegated
the
Attorney
Generals
exercise
of
his
discretion.
this
unpublished,
court
has
non-binding
rejected
this
decisions.
argument
See
United
in
three
States
v.
after
argument),
petition
for
cert.
filed,
__
2012); United States v. Burns, 418 F. Appx 209 (4th Cir. 2011)
(unpublished after argument).
2012
States
v.
Guzman,
591
F.3d
83,
93
See, e.g.,
(2d
Cir.
2010)
circumscribed
because
SORNA
includes
specific
crime
of
failure
to
register
(internal
citations
Whaley,
SORNAs
577
F.3d
statement
principle);
Ambert,
254,
of
561
264
(5th
purpose
F.3d
is
at
Cir.
a
2009)
guiding
1213-14
(holding
that
intelligible
(describing
SORNAs
Based on these
persuasive
non-delegation
authorities,
we
too
reject
Clarks
argument.
Turning to Clarks Commerce Clause and ex post facto
claims, Clark aptly concedes that these issues are foreclosed by
this courts decision in United States v. Gould, 568 F.3d 459
4
A panel
the
foregoing
courts judgment.
facts
and
materials
legal
before
reasons,
we
affirm
the
district
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
the
aid
the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED