United States v. James Coppock, 765 F.3d 921

Coppock, a federal sex offender, was on federal parole when SORNA was enacted.
SORNA requires registration and updates; the Attorney General determined applicability to pre-SORNA offenders.
Coppock admitted he moved registrations to Nebraska and later failed to notify changes.
In 2012, Coppock was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a) for failing to register/update.
District court denied Coppock’s motion to dismiss; he pled guilty conditionally.
The panel affirms the district court, concluding Congress validly enacted SORNA under Article I.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Congress had authority to apply SORNA to Coppock on parole	Coppock argues lack of authority under Necessary and Proper and Military Regulation	U.S. argues Kebodeaux/Comstock authorize application to federal parolees	Constitutional as applied under Article I
Whether retroactive application and delegation issues defeat validity	Delegation and retroactivity undermine enforcement	Precedents foreclose these challenges	Foreclosed; admissible under current precedent
Whether the decision is limited to Coppock’s facts or broader constitutional authority	Limitation to post-Wetterling Act scenarios	Authority extends to pre-Wetterling Act offenders on parole	Authority upheld as applied to Coppock's situation

United States v. Comstock, 560 U.S. 126 (2010) (authorized civil-commitment and federal custodial power under Necessary and Proper Clause)
United States v. Kebodeaux, 133 S. Ct. 2496 (2013) (authority to apply SORNA to federal offenders, including military context)
Reynolds v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 975 (2012) (SORNA applicability and statutory interpretation guidance)
United States v. May, 535 F.3d 912 (8th Cir. 2008) (precedent on §2250(a) scope before Wetterling Act)
United States v. Howell, 552 F.3d 709 (8th Cir. 2009) (pre-SORNA conviction context limitations)