United States v. Barrieta-Barrera

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: February 15, 2022
• Docket: 21-10878
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 21-10878 Document: 00516203469 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2022

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED February 15, 2022 No. 21-10878 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Juan Jesus Barrieta-Barrera,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:18-CR-194-1

Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Juan Jesus Barrieta-Barrera was sentenced to 12 months of imprisonment after he pleaded true to violating the terms of the supervised release imposed following his 2019 conviction for illegal reentry after deportation. On appeal, he challenges the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C.

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 21-10878 Document: 00516203469 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/15/2022

§ 3583(g), which mandates revocation of supervised release and a term of imprisonment for any offender who violates certain conditions of supervised release, including possessing a controlled substance. Relying on United States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 2369 (2019), Barrieta- Barrera contends that § 3583(g) is unconstitutional because it requires revocation of a term of supervised release and imposition of a term of imprisonment without affording the defendant the constitutionally guaranteed right to a jury trial. He concedes that his challenge is foreclosed under United States v. Garner, 969 F.3d 550 (5th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 1439 (2021), and raises the issue to preserve it for further review. The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance and, alternatively, for an extension of time to file its brief. In Garner, we rejected the argument that Barrieta-Barrera has advanced and held that § 3583(g) is not unconstitutional under Haymond. See Garner, 969 F.3d at 551-53. Thus, Barrieta-Barrera’s sole argument on appeal is foreclosed. Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, its alternative motion for extension of time is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).