
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alexander Zane ZEPHIER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-1828.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Nov. 11, 2014.
    Filed: Jan. 15, 2015.
    
      Jeffrey C. Clapper, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Sioux Falls, SD, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
    Timothy J. Langley, Assistant, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Sioux Falls, SD, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Alexander Zane Zephier, Sioux Falls, SD, pro se.
    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 challenging the constitutionality of the federal sex offender registration statute. The district court denied the motion. Zephier appeals.

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 Ze-phier 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, — U.S.-, 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 District of South Dakota.
     