Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Andre Demarcus Rubell was convicted in the Northern District of Texas (No. 4:19-CR-166-1) and placed on supervised release. The district court subsequently revoked that term and sentenced him to 12 months of imprisonment. Rubell appealed the revocation judgment to the Fifth Circuit.
On appeal, Rubell raised a constitutional challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g), the mandatory revocation provision of the supervised-release statute, arguing for the first time that it violates the Sixth Amendment because it compels revocation and imprisonment without a jury trial or proof beyond a reasonable doubt. He grounded his argument in the Supreme Court’s plurality opinion in United States v. Haymond, 588 U.S. 634 (2019), which invalidated a discrete portion of § 3583(k) on similar grounds. Rubell conceded, however, that Fifth Circuit precedent already foreclosed his position.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit, sitting per curiam, granted the government’s unopposed motion for summary affirmance and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that Rubell’s constitutional challenge to § 3583(g) is controlled by United States v. Garner, 969 F.3d 550 (5th Cir. 2020), which squarely rejected the argument that Haymond renders § 3583(g) unconstitutional.
Because Rubell’s sole appellate issue was foreclosed by binding circuit precedent, the court found summary affirmance appropriate under Groendyke Transport, Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). The government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a merits brief was denied as moot.
Key Takeaways
- Haymond‘s Sixth Amendment holding does not extend to § 3583(g): the Fifth Circuit reaffirmed that the mandatory revocation provision is constitutional even though it operates without a jury or a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard.
- Defendants seeking to import Haymond into § 3583(g) challenges face an insurmountable bar in the Fifth Circuit under Garner.
- Summary affirmance is available — and appropriate — when the appellant’s sole issue is squarely foreclosed by existing circuit precedent, sparing both parties the cost of full briefing.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the Fifth Circuit’s narrow reading of Haymond. Although the Supreme Court’s plurality opinion cast doubt on mandatory imprisonment provisions in the supervised-release context, the Fifth Circuit has consistently limited its reach to the specific subsection at issue in that case — § 3583(k) — leaving § 3583(g)’s mandatory revocation scheme intact. Defense counsel in the circuit should be aware that Garner remains the controlling word and that raising a Haymond-based § 3583(g) argument risks summary disposition.
More broadly, the case illustrates the procedural tool of summary affirmance: when binding precedent resolves an appeal at the threshold, the Fifth Circuit will cut short the appellate process without full merits briefing, an outcome that conserves judicial resources but leaves defendants with limited recourse short of en banc rehearing or certiorari.