Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Joseph Jackson appealed a Northern District of Texas judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to six months in prison followed by an additional 24 months of supervised release.
For the first time on appeal, Jackson challenged 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g), which mandates revocation and imprisonment when an offender violates certain supervised-release conditions, including by possessing a controlled substance or refusing drug testing. Relying on United States v. Haymond, Jackson argued that the statute unconstitutionally permits those consequences without a jury trial or proof beyond a reasonable doubt. He acknowledged that Fifth Circuit precedent foreclosed his argument and raised it to preserve the issue for further review.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit held that Jackson’s constitutional challenge was foreclosed by United States v. Garner, 969 F.3d 550 (5th Cir. 2020). Garner had rejected the same argument and held that § 3583(g) is not unconstitutional under Haymond.
Because Jackson’s sole appellate argument was foreclosed, the court concluded that summary affirmance was proper. It granted the Government’s unopposed motion for summary affirmance, denied its alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief, and affirmed the district court’s judgment.
Key Takeaways
- Fifth Circuit precedent holds that § 3583(g) is not unconstitutional under Haymond.
- A supervised-release defendant’s right-to-jury and reasonable-doubt challenge to mandatory revocation under § 3583(g) remains foreclosed in the Fifth Circuit.
- The court summarily affirmed because Jackson’s only appellate argument was controlled by Garner.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that Garner continues to control constitutional challenges to mandatory supervised-release revocation under § 3583(g) in the Fifth Circuit. Defendants may preserve such a challenge for further review, but a Fifth Circuit panel remains bound by that precedent.