Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Desmond Dejuan Strickland appealed the Northern District of Texas’s judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 24 months in prison.
For the first time on appeal, Strickland argued that the mandatory-revocation provision in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g) is unconstitutional under United States v. Haymond, 588 U.S. 634 (2019). He also argued that 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) does not permit a court to consider a defendant’s breach of trust when determining a revocation sentence. Strickland acknowledged that existing Fifth Circuit precedent foreclosed both arguments.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit held that summary affirmance was appropriate because its precedents in United States v. Garner, 969 F.3d 550, 551-53 (5th Cir. 2020), and United States v. Cano, 981 F.3d 422, 426 (5th Cir. 2020), foreclosed Strickland’s constitutional and statutory arguments.
The court granted the Government’s unopposed motion for summary affirmance and affirmed the district court’s judgment. It denied the Government’s alternative motion for additional time to file a brief.
Key Takeaways
- Fifth Circuit precedent forecloses the argument that 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g) is unconstitutional under Haymond.
- Fifth Circuit precedent permits consideration of a defendant’s breach of trust in imposing a supervised-release revocation sentence under § 3583(e).
- Summary affirmance is proper when an appellant concedes that binding circuit precedent defeats the issues raised.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that Fifth Circuit panels remain bound by Garner and Cano in supervised-release revocation appeals. Defendants seeking to preserve contrary arguments may do so, but a panel may summarily affirm when those arguments are concededly foreclosed.