US v. Joshua Sampsell
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:12-cr-00037-MFU-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999205359].. [13-4272]
Appeal: 13-4272
Doc: 22
Filed: 10/01/2013
Pg: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4272
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JOSHUA JAMES SAMPSELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg.
Michael F. Urbanski,
District Judge. (5:12-cr-00037-MFU-1)
Submitted:
September 24, 2013
Decided:
October 1, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Christine Madeleine
Lee, Research and Writing Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellant.
Timothy
J.
Heaphy,
United
States
Attorney,
Elizabeth G.
Wright,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 13-4272
Doc: 22
Filed: 10/01/2013
Pg: 2 of 5
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
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a) (2006).
Act
(“SORNA”),
in
Sampsell argues that
Congress violated the non-delegation doctrine and the Ex Post
Facto Clause in enacting SORNA.
We reject these arguments and
affirm.
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
1202, 1212 (11th Cir. 2009).
to
another
branch
of
States
v.
Ambert,
561
F.3d
Congress’s delegation of authority
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
(1928).
Even
a
general
legislative
2
directive
is
a
Appeal: 13-4272
Doc: 22
Filed: 10/01/2013
Pg: 3 of 5
constitutionally sufficient “intelligible principle” so long as
Congress
agency
“clearly
which
is
delineates
to
apply
delegated authority.”
372-73
(1989)
the
it,
general
and
policy,
the
the
boundaries
public
of
this
Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361,
(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
F.
App’x 276, 278 (4th Cir. 2012) (No. 12-4208), petition for cert.
filed,
__
U.S.L.W.
__,
(U.S.
Feb.
28,
2013)
(No.
12-9062);
United States v. Mitchell, 498 F. App’x 258, 260 (4th Cir. 2012)
(No.
12-4393),
cert.
denied,
133
S.
Ct.
2854
(2013);
United
States v. Clark, 483 F. App’x 802, 804 (4th Cir. 2012) (No.
11-5098), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 930 (2013); United States v.
Rogers,
468
F.
App’x
359,
361-62
(4th
Cir.)
(No.
10-5099)
(argued but unpublished), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 157 (2012);
United States v. Stewart, 461 F. App’x 349, 351 (4th Cir.) (Nos.
11-4420/4471),
cert.
denied,
132
3
S.
Ct.
2446
(2012);
United
Appeal: 13-4272
Doc: 22
Filed: 10/01/2013
Pg: 4 of 5
States v. Burns, 418 F. App’x 209, 211-12 (4th Cir. 2011) (No.
09-4909) (argued but unpublished).
Other circuits to consider
the issue have similarly concluded that Congress’s delegation to
the
Attorney
General
of
authority
to
determine
SORNA’s
retroactivity did not violate the non-delegation doctrine.
See,
e.g., United States v. Goodwin, 717 F.3d 511, 516-17 (7th Cir.
2013), petition for cert. filed, __ U.S.L.W. __, (U.S. Aug. 2,
2013) (No. 13-5762); United States v. Kuehl, 706 F.3d 917, 920
(8th Cir. 2013); United States v. Guzman, 591 F.3d 83, 93 (2d
Cir. 2010); United States v. Whaley, 577 F.3d 254, 264 (5th Cir.
2009); Ambert, 561 F.3d at 1213-14.
authorities, *
we
likewise
reject
Based on these persuasive
Sampsell’s
non-delegation
challenge.
*
While Sampsell intimates that the Attorney General was an
improper entity to determine SORNA’s retroactivity in part
because the Department of Justice is a “police agency” without a
scientific focus, we find this argument unpersuasive.
See
United States v. Parks, 698 F.3d 1, 7-8 (1st Cir. 2012)
(recognizing that retroactivity question required Attorney
General to determine whether SORNA’s general policy goals “would
be offset, in the case of pre-SORNA sexual offenders, by
problems of administration, notice and the like for this
discrete group of offenders—problems well suited to the Attorney
General’s on-the-ground assessment”).
We also conclude that
Justice Scalia’s dissent in Reynolds v. United States, 132 S.
Ct. 975 (2012), in which he questioned whether SORNA may “sail[]
close to the wind” regarding proper legislative delegation, id.
at 986 (Scalia J., dissenting), does not overcome the weight of
persuasive authority rejecting non-delegation challenges to
SORNA.
4
Appeal: 13-4272
Doc: 22
Filed: 10/01/2013
Pg: 5 of 5
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).
“[a]
panel
of
this
court
cannot
overrule,
Because
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.
legal
before
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
this
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?