FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 27 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 09-30345
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 4:09-cr-00049-SEH
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LOUIE DONALD IRON BEAR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 25, 2014**
Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Louie Donald Iron Bear appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 20-month sentence for failure to register
as a sexual offender under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act
(“SORNA”), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). We have jurisdiction under 28
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm in part and dismiss in part.
Iron Bear first argues that the district court should have dismissed the
indictment because Montana had not implemented SORNA at the time of his
offense. This argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Elk Shoulder, 738 F.3d
948, 954-55 (9th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 1920 (2014) (enforcement of
SORNA is not dependent on a state’s implementation of the administrative portion
of SORNA); United States v. Elkins, 683 F.3d 1039, 1046 (9th Cir. 2012) (same).
Iron Bear next argues that Congress lacked authority under the Commerce
Clause to require him to register. This argument is also foreclosed. See United
States v. Kebodeaux, 133 S. Ct. 2496, 2500 (2013) (concluding that “the Necessary
and Proper Clause grants Congress adequate power to enact SORNA and to apply
it” to a defendant convicted of a federal sex crime who was subject to federal sex
offender registration requirements at the time of SORNA’s enactment in 2006); Elk
Shoulder, 738 F.3d at 959 (same).
Lastly, Iron Bear contends that the district court failed adequately to explain
the sentence and that the 20-month sentence was substantively unreasonable.
Because Iron Bear has fully served his custodial sentence and is no longer subject
to a term of supervised release, we dismiss his sentencing appeal as moot. See
United States v. Palomba, 182 F.3d 1121, 1123 (9th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 09-30345