UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT D. POWERS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

11th Cir. | 2009-03-26
No. 08-12764
Before BLACK and MARCUS, Circuit Judges, and QUIST, District Judge.
562 F.3d 1342 Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (2009) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM: Defendant Robert D. Powers was indicted for failing to register as required by the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 U.S.C. § 16913, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). Powers moved to dismiss the indictment, and, after hearing argument, the district court declared 18 U.S.C. § 2250 facially unconstitutional, dismissed the indictment, and ordered Powers released. United States v. Powers, 544 F. Supp. 2d 1331, 1336 (M.D.Fla.2008).

On appeal, the Government argues the district court erred in holding 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a) facially unconstitutional as an invalid exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause power. In United States v. Ambert, 561 F. 3d 1202, No. 08-13139, 2009 WL 564677 (11th Cir. March 6, 2009), this Court held both the registration provisions set forth at 42 U.S.C. § 16913 and the failure to register offense set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a) do not violate the Commerce Clause. Id. at *8-9, 1211-12.

We concluded § 2250 falls within Congress’s power to regulate “both the use of channels of interstate commerce and the instrumentalities of interstate commerce.” Id. at *8, 1211. We also concluded “the requirement that sex offenders register under § 16913 is necessary to track those offenders who move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.” Id. at *10,1212. Ambert controls here.

The district court erred in dismissing the indictment against Powers on the ground that SOR-NA exceeded Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause.

Accordingly, we vacate the order of the district court and remand for reinstatement of the indictment. VACATED AND REMANDED.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • United States v. W.B.H., 664 F.3d 848 (11th Cir. 2011)
    …three days after changing their name, residence, employment, or student status. Id. § 16913(c). The in-person requirements help law enforcement track sex offenders and ensure that the information provided is accurate. See United States v. Powers, 562 F. 3d 1342, 1344 (11th Cir.2009) (“[T]he requirement that sex offenders register under § 16913 is necessary to track those offenders who move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.” (quotation marks omitted)). Appearing in person may be more inconvenient, but re…
  • United States v. Myers, 584 F.3d 1349 (11th Cir. 2009)
    …he Supreme Court or this Court sitting en banc. See United States v. Vega-Castillo, 540 F. 3d 1235, 1236 (11th Cir.2008). Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for reinstatement of the indictment. See United States v. Powers, 562 F. 3d 1342, 1344 (11th Cir.2009). VACATED AND REMANDED. . We have denied Myers' petition for an initial hearing en banc.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw