Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Omar Villarreal was convicted in the Northern District of Texas (Case No. 2:17-CR-64-1) and subsequently placed on supervised release. The district court revoked that supervised release term and sentenced him to seven months of imprisonment followed by an additional period of supervised release.
On appeal, Villarreal raised a constitutional challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g), the mandatory revocation provision governing supervised release, arguing it was unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court’s plurality decision in United States v. Haymond, 588 U.S. 634 (2019). Because this argument was not raised before the district court, it came before the Fifth Circuit for the first time on appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit granted the government’s motion for summary affirmance and affirmed the district court’s judgment without full briefing. The court found that Villarreal’s constitutional challenge was foreclosed by circuit precedent — specifically United States v. Garner, 969 F.3d 550, 551–53 (5th Cir. 2020), which had already rejected the same argument that Haymond renders § 3583(g) unconstitutional.
Villarreal himself conceded that his position was foreclosed by Garner. Given this binding precedent, the court found summary affirmance appropriate under Groendyke Transport, Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), and denied the government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a full brief as moot.
Key Takeaways
- The Fifth Circuit’s decision in Garner (2020) remains controlling: Haymond does not render 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g)’s mandatory supervised release revocation provisions unconstitutional in the Fifth Circuit.
- Arguments raised for the first time on appeal face not only plain error review but, where circuit precedent already forecloses the claim, summary affirmance is appropriate.
- A defendant’s own concession that circuit precedent bars his argument effectively invites summary disposition, leaving no procedural reason for the government to file a full merits brief.
Why It Matters
This unpublished per curiam decision reinforces the Fifth Circuit’s settled position that the Supreme Court’s fractured Haymond ruling — which addressed mandatory minimum reimprisonment triggered by drug-use findings during supervised release — does not broadly invalidate § 3583(g)’s revocation scheme. Defense attorneys seeking to leverage Haymond to challenge revocations in the Fifth Circuit face a firm circuit-level bar under Garner.
The case also illustrates the practical efficiency of the summary affirmance procedure: when binding precedent squarely forecloses an appellant’s sole argument and the appellant concedes as much, the Fifth Circuit will not require full briefing, conserving judicial and party resources while swiftly disposing of the appeal.