United States v. Knowles

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: February 11, 2025
• Docket: 24-10706
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 24-10706 Document: 40-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/11/2025

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

FILED No. 24-10706 February 11, 2025 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Kevin Gregory Knowles,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:17-CR-54-1 ______________________________

Before Dennis, Ho, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Kevin Gregory Knowles appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 24 months of imprisonment. Knowles challenges the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g), which mandates revocation of supervised release and a term of

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 24-10706 Document: 40-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/11/2025

No. 24-10706

imprisonment for any offender who violates specified conditions of supervised release, including possession of a firearm. Relying on United States v. Haymond, 588 U.S. 634 (2019), Knowles 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 and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. However, he concedes that his challenge is foreclosed by United States v. Garner, 969 F.3d 550 (5th Cir. 2020), and merely raises this issue to preserve it for further review. The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance, or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file a brief. In Garner, we rejected the argument that Knowles has advanced and held that § 3583(g) is not unconstitutional under Haymond. See Garner, 969 F.3d at 551–53. Thus, Knowles’s sole argument on appeal is foreclosed, and summary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.