United States v. Davis, 10th Cir. (2009)
United States v. Davis, 10th Cir. (2009)
November 4, 2009
TENTH CIRCUIT
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
No. 09-6098
v.
(W.D. Oklahoma)
Defendant - Appellant.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination
of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Defendant and appellant Marvell Lamont Davis pled guilty to one count of
failure to register as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration and
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
Cir. R. 32.1.
-3-
We are in agreement with the vast majority of courts to have decided this
issue. See United States v. Van Buren, Jr., 2008 WL 3414012, *11 (N.D.N.Y.
2008) (noting that [t]o date, over 75 federal courts have addressed the
constitutionality of SORNA, and a majority of these cases have addressed
Congresss authority to enact the statute under the Commerce Clause. All but two
. . . have found SORNA to be constitutionally enacted) (citations omitted).
-4-
507 F. Supp. 2d 522, 530 (E.D.N.C. 2007) (noting that [s]everal recent decisions
addressing constitutional challenges to [SORNA] . . . have concluded that the
SORNA is civil and nonpunitive).
Similarly, Mr. Daviss counsel submits no binding authority supporting his
claim that SORNA violates the Spending Clause of the Constitution and conflicts
with principles of federalism. While this court has not yet addressed these
issues, the scant authority on them goes against Mr. Davis. See, e.g., United
States v. Hernandez, 615 F. Supp. 2d 601, 624 (E.D. Mich. 2009) (SORNA does
not violate the Tenth Amendment or the principles of federalism.); United
States v. Barner, 635 F. Supp. 2d 138, 151 (N.D.N.Y. 2009) (With regard to the
Spending Clause and SORNA, the Court notes that the issue has not yet been
addressed by any Circuit Court. However, courts in this district have rejected the
argument [that SORNA contravenes the Spending Clause].).
Accordingly, we agree with Mr. Daviss counsel that there is no nonfrivolous ground in the record on which to appeal Mr. Daviss guilty plea. For
the foregoing reasons, we GRANT counsels motion to withdraw and DISMISS
this appeal.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephen H. Anderson
Circuit Judge
-5-