United States v. Norman Reed, No. 18-1698 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Smith, Chief Judge, and Gruender and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Constitutional challenge to SORNA rejected. See U.S. v. Jennings, 930 F.3d 1024 (8th Cir. 2019).
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-1698 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Norman Eugene Reed lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines ____________ Submitted: October 14, 2019 Filed: November 8, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, Chief Judge, GRUENDER and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Norman Eugene Reed pleaded guilty to failure to register as a sex offender, in violation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). Reed makes an unpreserved claim that, because he was convicted of a sex offense prior to the passage of SORNA, the retroactive application violates the nondelegation doctrine. Reed concedes that plain-error review applies to his challenge to the constitutionality of the statute of conviction. See Appellant’s Br. at 5; see also United States v. Jennings, 930 F.3d 1024, 1027 (8th Cir. 2019). In 2007, the Attorney General retroactively applied SORNA to sex offenders, acting under the authority delegated by Congress under 42 U.S.C. § 16913(d) (2006). We ruled on this issue in United States v. Kuehl, 706 F.3d 917 (8th Cir. 2013), concluding that “SORNA provides the Attorney General with an intelligible principle, and is a valid delegation of legislative authority.” Id. at 920. After [Reed pleaded guilty], the Supreme Court granted certiorari on this issue in Gundy v. United States, 17-6086. On June 20, 2019, the Supreme Court rejected the arguments relied upon by [Reed], stating “The question becomes: Did Congress make an impermissible delegation when it instructed the Attorney General to apply SORNA’s registration requirements to pre-Act offenders as soon as feasible? Under this Court’s long-established law, that question is easy. Its answer is no.” Gundy v. United States, 588 U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 2116, 2129, ––– L.Ed.2d –––– (2019). Kuehl remains the binding law in this circuit. Jennings, 930 F.3d at 1027. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.1 ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. -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.
