
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Scott Arthur PARENT, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-30349.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 18, 2014.
    
    Filed Nov. 24, 2014.
    Timothy John Racicot, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Missoula, MT, Leif Johnson, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Michael Donahoe, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders Of Montana Helena, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before: CLIFTON, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Scott Parent appeals his conviction for violating the Sex Offender Registration Notification Act (“SORNA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a)(l)(2)(B), (3). He also challenges his classification as a Tier III sex offender for the purposes of sentencing, and the denial of a motion to certify a question to' the Oregon Supreme Court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm.

1. We have previously rejected Parent’s argument that SORNA’s delegation of authority to the Attorney General violates the separation of powers doctrine. United States v. Richardson, 754 F.3d 1143, 1145-46 (9th Cir.2014); United States v. Elkins, 683 F.3d 1039, 1045 (9th Cir.2012).

2. The district court properly determined that Parent’s conviction for attempted rape in the first degree under Oregon Revised Statutes §§ 163.375, 161.405, is “comparable to” attempted sexual abuse under 18 U.S.C. § 2242, a Tier III offense under 42 U.S.C. § 16911 and the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2A3.5. See United States v. Cabrerar-Gutierrez, 756 F.3d 1125, 1133 (9th Cir.2014) (requiring use of the categorical approach described in Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990), and Descamps v. United States, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2276, 186 L.Ed.2d 438 (2013) in making such determinations).

3. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Parent’s motion to certify a question to the Oregon Supreme Court because the answer would not have been “determinative of’ this SORNA case, as required by Oregon law.. Or.Rev.Stat. § 28.200; W. Helicopter Servs., Inc. v. Rogerson Aircraft Corp., 311 Or. 361, 811 P.2d 627, 630 (1991).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     