United States v. Moldovan

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: June 12, 2026
• Docket: 25-11140
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 25-11140 Document: 43-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/12/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED June 12, 2026 No. 25-11140 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk ____________

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

John Moldovan,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:21-CR-201-1 ______________________________

Before Elrod, Chief Judge, and Stewart, and Higginson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* John Moldovan appeals from the judgment of the district court revoking his term of supervised release and sentencing him to 10 months of imprisonment. Relying on United States v. Haymond, 588 U.S. 634 (2019), Moldovan argues that 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g) is unconstitutional because it requires revocation of supervised release and imposition of a term of _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-11140 Document: 43-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/12/2026

No. 25-11140

imprisonment without affording the defendant the constitutionally guaranteed right to a jury trial or requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt. However, he acknowledges that his challenge is foreclosed by United States v. Garner. 969 F.3d 550 (5th Cir. 2020). The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file its brief. In Garner, we rejected the argument that Moldovan has asserted and held that § 3583(g) is not unconstitutional under Haymond. See Garner, 969 F.3d at 551-53. Thus, Moldovan’s sole argument on appeal is foreclosed, and summary affirmance is proper. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED. Its alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.