
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Leroy CARTER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-30105.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 18, 2014.
    
    Filed Nov. 24, 2014.
    Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, David R. Jennings, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tacoma, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Colin A. Fieman, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Alan Zarky, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Tacoma, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

James Leroy Carter appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction for failure to register and update his sex offender registration under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review Carter’s challenge to the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment de novo, see United States v. Cabrera-Gutierrez, 756 F.3d 1125, 1129 (9th Cir.2014), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 124, — L.Ed.2d - (2014), and we affirm.

Carter contends that Congress violated the non-delegation doctrine because it allows the Attorney General authority to legislate SORNA’s retroactive application. This contention is foreclosed. See United States v. Richardson, 754 F.3d 1143, 1146 (9th Cir.2014) (per curiam) (“SORNA’s delegation of authority to the Attorney General to determine the applicability of SORNA’s registration requirements to pre-SORNA sex offenders is consistent with the requirements of the non-delegation doctrine.”).

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