United States v. Bobby Walker , 411 F. App'x 947 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 09-3517
    ___________
    United States of America,                *
    *
    Appellee,                   *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                 * District Court for the
    * Western District of Arkansas.
    Bobby Dale Walker,                       *
    * [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellant.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted: February 14, 2011
    Filed: February 28, 2011
    ___________
    Before RILEY, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN and BYE, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Bobby Dale Walker pleaded guilty to violating 
    18 U.S.C. § 2250
     based on his
    failure to register as a sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration and
    Notification Act (SORNA), 
    42 U.S.C. §§ 16901-16991
    . The district court1 sentenced
    him to a term of thirty months of imprisonment. Walker entered a conditional plea
    which preserved his right to bring this appeal. He argues the criminal statute (§ 2250)
    and § 113 of the SORNA (
    42 U.S.C. § 16913
    ) violate the commerce clause of the
    1
    The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the
    Western District of Arkansas.
    United States Constitution because they have an insufficient nexus to the regulation
    of interstate commerce.
    Walker's argument (which he acknowledges raising solely for the purpose of
    preserving the issue for potential further review) is foreclosed in this circuit by United
    States v. May, 
    535 F.3d 912
    , 922 (8th Cir. 2008) (holding that § 2250 is an
    appropriate exercise of Congress's power to regulate the use of the channels of
    interstate commerce) and United States v. Howell, 
    552 F.3d 709
    , 715 (8th Cir. 2009)
    ("[A]n analysis of § 16913 under the broad authority granted to Congress through
    both the commerce clause and the enabling necessary and proper clause reveals the
    statute is constitutionally authorized."). See also United States v. Reynolds, 
    116 F.3d 328
    , 329 (8th Cir. 1997) ("One panel may not overrule another.").
    We therefore affirm the judgment of conviction and sentence.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-3517

Citation Numbers: 411 F. App'x 947

Judges: Bye, Per Curiam, Riley, Wollman

Filed Date: 2/28/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023