United States of America v. Alexander Zane Zephier

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 14-1828
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Alexander Zane Zephier
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of South Dakota - Sioux Falls
____________
Submitted: November 11, 2014
Filed: January 15, 2015
[Unpublished]
____________
Before MURPHY, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Alexander Zephier pled guilty to failure to register as a sex offender in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). He filed a motion to dismiss the indictment

-- 1 of 2 --

challenging the constitutionality of the federal sex offender registration statute. The
district court denied the motion. Zephier appeals.1
In 2004 Zephier was convicted of sexually abusing a minor. After Congress
enacted the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act in 2006, Zephier was
required to register periodically as a sex offender. See 42 U.S.C. § 16901 et seq. He
failed to register as required in June 2012. A federal grand jury indicted Zephier six
months later for failing to register as a sex offender in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
2250(a). He pled guilty and one week before his sentencing, he moved to dismiss the
indictment, arguing that the Sex Offender Registration Act violated the non
delegation doctrine of the United States Constitution. His motion acknowledged that
the controlling law in this circuit was settled. The district court denied the motion
and Zephier appeals.
We review constitutional challenges de novo. United States v. Fernandez, 710
F.3d 847, 849 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 213, 187 L. Ed. 2d 161 (2013). We
recently considered and rejected identical challenges to the constitutionality of the
Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act in Fernandez and in United States v.
Kuehl. See id.; 706 F.3d 917, 920 (8th Cir. 2013). Zephier has not identified any
subsequent opinions of our court that limit the precedential effect of those cases, and
we "remain bound" by our earlier decisions. Fernandez, 710 F.3d at 850.
For these reasons we affirm the judgment of the district court.
______________________________
The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District1
of South Dakota.
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --