USA v. Edward Myers, No. 09-10228 (11th Cir. 2009)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 09-10228 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Oct. 13, 2009 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK D. C. Docket No. 08-60064-CR-WJZ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus EDWARD MYERS, Defendant-Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _________________________ (October 13, 2009) Before BIRCH, BLACK and HULL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: The Government appeals the district court s order dismissing an indictment that charged Edward Myers with traveling in interstate commerce and failing to register as sex offender as required by the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). The district court concluded that both § 2250 and SORNA s sex-offender registration requirements found in 42 U.S.C. § 16913 exceeded Congress s authority under the Commerce Clause. United States v. Myers, 591 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1316 (S.D. Fla. 2008). We recently upheld against a Commerce Clause challenge both the failure-to-register offense in 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a) and the registration requirements in 42 U.S.C. § 16913. See United States v. Ambert, 561 F.3d 1202, 1210-12 (11th Cir. 2009). Myers concedes that the district court s order dismissing the indictment is contrary to Ambert but challenges the reasoning of that panel s decision on appeal. We are bound by that decision unless overruled by the Supreme Court or this Court sitting en banc. See United States v. Vega-Castillo, 540 F.3d 1235, 1236 (11th Cir. 2008).1 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. 1 We have denied Myers petition for an initial hearing en banc. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.