Opinion

United States v. Joshua Southerland

  • 540 F. App'x 407
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Filed
Oct 2, 2013
Status
Unpublished
On the bench
Davis, Higginson, Per Curiam, Southwick
Cited by
2 cases
Authority
More cited than 67.3%

The opinion

Case: 13-30008 Document: 00512394649 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/02/2013

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 2, 2013

No. 13-30008

Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSHUA SOUTHERLAND,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:12-CR-21-1

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Joshua Southerland pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to

failing to register as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration and

Notification Act (SORNA). Prior to his guilty plea, Southerland moved

unsuccessfully to dismiss his indictment on the ground that Congress improperly

delegated to the Attorney General the power to decide whether SORNA’s

registration requirements applied to sex offenders, like Southerland, who were

*

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.

Case: 13-30008 Document: 00512394649 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/02/2013

No. 13-30008

convicted before SORNA went into effect. In his plea agreement, Southerland

reserved the right to raise this issue on appeal.

We have addressed and rejected previous challenges to SORNA based on

the nondelegation doctrine. See United States v. Johnson, 632 F.3d 912, 917 (5th

Cir. 2011); United States v. Whaley, 577 F.3d 254, 262-64 (5th Cir. 2009).

Southerland recognizes our precedent, but urges that Reynolds v. United States,

132 S. Ct. 975 (2012), calls into question its continued applicability. Reynolds,

however, did not explicitly or implicitly overrule Johnson and Whaley;

accordingly, we are bound by those decisions. See United States v. Short, 181

F.3d 620, 624 (5th Cir. 1999).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.