
    UNITED STATES of America v. Brian Dennis DOUGLAS, Appellant.
    No. 09-1304.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Oct. 2, 2009.
    Filed May 6, 2010.
    
      Martin C. Carlson, Esq., Theodore B. Smith, III, ESQ., Office of United States Attorney, Harrisburg, PA, for United States of America.
    Frederick W. Ulrich, Esq., Office of Federal Public Defender, Harrisburg, PA, for Appellant.
    BEFORE: McKEE, Chief Judge, CHAGARES and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.

Brian Dennis Douglas appeals his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a) for failing to update his sex offender registry in Pennsylvania and in the State of Florida, in violation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). On appeal, Douglas challenges the validity and applicability of SORNA on various grounds. We find no merit in any of Douglas’ arguments because his contentions are foreclosed by our jurisprudence. We will briefly review the issues raised by Douglas on appeal.

First, neither the failure of Pennsylvania or Florida to implement SORNA affect Douglas’ duty to update his sex offender registration. We have held as much recently in United States v. Shenandoah, 595 F.3d 151, 157 (3d Cir.2010). Second, SOR-NA does not violate the ex post facto clause. Id. at 158-59. Douglas also raises a due process argument, which we rejected in Shenandoah. Id. at 159 n. 4.

Likewise, Douglas’ third argument was resolved by our decision in Shenandoah. SORNA does not require proof that the offender had actual notice of his registration obligation. Id. at 160. We additionally determined in Shenandoah that SORNA’s provisions violate neither the Commerce Clause nor the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. Id. at 160, 161-62. SORNA’s provisions likewise do not violate Douglas’ right to travel. Id. at 162.

Finally, as was the case in Shenandoah, we find Douglas lacks standing to challenge SORNA under the Administrative Procedure Act and to argue that SORNA violates the nondelegation doctrine. Id. at 163-64. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court.  