United States v. Jimmy Joel Beasley , 361 F. App'x 86 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                           [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FILED
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT   U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    ________________________   ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    JAN 14, 2010
    No. 09-11528                    JOHN LEY
    Non-Argument Calendar             ACTING CLERK
    ________________________
    D. C. Docket No. 07-00115-CR-1-TCB-1
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    JIMMY JOEL BEASLEY,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Georgia
    _________________________
    (January 14, 2010)
    Before BLACK, BARKETT and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Jimmy Joel Beasley appeals his conviction under 
    18 U.S.C. § 2250
    (a) for
    failing to register as a sex offender in Georgia, in accordance with the Sex
    Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”).1 On appeal, Beasley
    challenges the validity and applicability of SORNA on various grounds.2 We find
    no merit to any of Beasley’s contentions, because his arguments are foreclosed by
    prior panel precedent.
    First, contrary to Beasley’s argument, Georgia’s failure to implement
    SORNA did not affect Beasley’s duty to register as a sex offender for purposes of
    SORNA. See United States v. Brown, No. 08-17244, manuscript op. at 13 (11th
    Cir. Nov. 5, 2009) (an individual may “comply with SORNA’s registration
    requirements by registering through the state’s sex offender registry, even if that
    jurisdiction has not implemented SORNA’s administrative procedures”); O.C.G.A.
    § 42-1-12 (e)(6). Second, SORNA does not violate the ex post facto clause,
    because, although Beasley traveled to Georgia in the gap period between
    1
    Beasley was convicted of a sex offense in Mississippi in 1985 and was sentenced to 15
    years in prison and required to register as a sex offender for life. After his release from prison in
    2002, he registered as a sex offender in Jackson County, Mississippi. He traveled to Georgia in
    January 2007 and did not register as a sex offender. On March 8, 2007, after a warrant was
    issued for his arrest in Jackson County, U.S. Marshals arrested Beasley in DeKalb County
    Georgia, where he was working for a carnival.
    2
    Beasley filed a motion to dismiss his indictment with the district court on the same
    grounds he raises in this appeal. The district court denied that motion. Beasley subsequently
    pled guilty and accepted a plea agreement but reserved the right to appeal the denial of his
    motion to dismiss for constitutional violations. We review a district court’s denial of a motion to
    dismiss an indictment for abuse of discretion. United States v. Seher, 
    562 F.3d 1344
    , 1356 (11th
    Cir. 2009). However, we review de novo “issues concerning statutory interpretation and
    constitutional law.” United States v. Ambert, 
    561 F.3d 1202
    , 1205 (11th Cir. 2009).
    2
    SORNA’s enactment in 2006 and the Attorney General’s February 28, 2007
    determination that SORNA applies retroactively, Beasley’s duty to register in
    Georgia arose on March 5, 2007, after the Attorney General’s announcement that
    SORNA applies retroactively. See United States v. Dumont, 
    555 F.3d 1288
     (11th
    Cir. 2009) cert. denied, 
    130 S.Ct. 66
     (2009). Third, the Attorney General’s
    retroactive application of SORNA does not violate the non-delegation doctrine.
    See United States v. Ambert, 
    561 F.3d 1202
    , 1205 (11th Cir. 2009). Fourth,
    Beasley’s SORNA conviction did not violate his procedural due process rights, see
    Brown, No. 08-17244, manuscript op. at 17, or his substantive due process rights,
    see Ambert, 
    561 F.3d at 1208-09
    . Finally, SORNA’s registration requirement and
    penalty provision constitute a proper exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause
    power. See Ambert, 
    561 F.3d at 1210-12
    .
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-11528

Citation Numbers: 361 F. App'x 86

Judges: Barkett, Black, Per Curiam, Pryor

Filed Date: 1/14/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/2/2023