United States v. Stradford

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: August 15, 2024
• Docket: 24-10144
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 24-10144 Document: 45-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/15/2024

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 24-10144 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ August 15, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Travyrus Jerard Stradford,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:21-CR-335-1 ______________________________

Before Smith, Stewart, and Duncan, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Travyrus Jerard Stradford appeals from the judgment revoking his term of supervised release and sentencing him to seven months in prison and two years of supervised release. For the first time on appeal, Stradford contests the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g), which mandates revocation of supervised release and imposition of a term of imprisonment

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 24-10144 Document: 45-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/15/2024

No. 24-10144

for any offender who violates specified conditions of supervised release, including, inter alia, refusal to comply with drug testing and possession of a controlled substance. Relying on United States v. Haymond, 588 U.S. 634 (2019), Stradford maintains 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 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), and merely asserts the issue to preserve it for further review. The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance or, in the alternative, for an extension of time to file its brief. In Garner, we rejected the argument that Stradford has raised and held that § 3583(g) is not unconstitutional under Haymond. See Garner, 969 F.3d at 551-53. Accordingly, Stradford’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). Thus, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, its alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.