UNITED STATES v. DONNELL (2019)

Joseph Benjamin O’Donnell appeals his conviction for failure to register as a sex offender in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a) (2012), as required by the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”). O’Donnell moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that 34 U.S.C. § 20913(d) (2012) violated the nondelegation doctrine by authorizing the Attorney General to retroactively apply SORNA’s registration requirements to pre-enactment offenders. The district court denied the motion. O’Donnell pled guilty, reserving his right to appeal the district court order denying his motion to dismiss.

On appeal, O’Donnell makes the same argument he asserted in the district court. Because this is a purely legal issue, we review the district court’s decision de novo. United States v. Cortez, 930 F.3d 350, 355 (4th Cir. 2019). While this appeal was pending, the Supreme Court held that § 20913(d) did not violate the nondelegation doctrine. Gundy v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 2116, 2129-2131, 204 L.Ed.2d 522 (2019). O’Donnell acknowledges the court’s decision in Gundy but desires to preserve his argument for possible further review.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.