UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joshua James SAMPSELL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-4272
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Decided: Oct. 1, 2013.
258 Fed. Appx. 258
Submitted: Sept. 24, 2013.
The Guidelines do not apply to the sentencing of petty offenses. See
Here, the magistrate judge considered the parties’ arguments and gave a detailed explanation for the sentence imposed. The judge considered the relevant
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm LaFlame’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform LaFlame, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If LaFlame requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on LaFlame.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joshua James Sampsell appeals the criminal judgment imposing a sentence of two years’ probation following Sampsell’s conditional guilty plea to travelling in interstate commerce and failing to register or update a registration as required by the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”), in violation of
We review de novo a district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment based purely on legal grounds. United States v. Hatcher, 560 F.3d 222, 224 (4th Cir.2009). We also review properly preserved constitutional claims de novo. United States v. Hall, 551 F.3d 257, 266 (4th Cir.2009).
“The non-delegation doctrine is based on the principle of preserving the separation of powers between the coordinate branches of government.” United States v. Ambert, 561 F.3d 1202, 1212 (11th Cir.2009). Congress’s delegation of authority to another branch of government does not offend the non-delegation doctrine as long as Congress has delineated an “intelligible principle” guiding the exercise of that authority. J.W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394, 409, 48 S.Ct. 348, 72 L.Ed. 624 (1928). Even a general legislative directive is a constitutionally sufficient “intelligible principle” so long as Congress “clearly delineates the general policy, the public agency which is to apply it, and the boundaries of this delegated authority.” Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 372-73, 109 S.Ct. 647, 102 L.Ed.2d 714 (1989) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The government does not bear an onerous burden in demonstrating the existence of an intelligible principle.” S.C. Med. Ass’n v. Thompson, 327 F.3d 346, 350 (4th Cir.2003).
On appeal, Sampsell asserts that Congress impermissibly delegated the exclusively legislative authority to determine SORNA’s retroactive applicability. Although this court has not resolved this issue in published authority, we have consistently rejected similar non-delegation challenges in unpublished decisions. See United States v. Atkins, 498 Fed.Appx. 276, 278 (4th Cir.2012), petition cert. for filed, — U.S. —, 134 S.Ct. 56, 187 L.Ed.2d 49, 2013 WL 821515 (U.S. Feb. 28,
Sampsell also challenges SORNA under the Ex Post Facto Clause. This issue is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Gould, 568 F.3d 459, 466 (4th Cir.2009). Because “[a] panel of this court cannot overrule, explicitly or implicitly, the precedent set by a prior panel of this court,” United States v. Rivers, 595 F.3d 558, 564 n. 3 (4th Cir.2010) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted), we conclude that Sampsell’s challenge must fail.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.