United States v. Ynojosa

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: March 5, 2025
• Docket: 24-10852
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 24-10852 Document: 43-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/05/2025

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

No. 24-10852 FILED Summary Calendar March 5, 2025 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Aaron Jason Ynojosa,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:20-CR-11-1 ______________________________

Before King, Southwick, and Graves, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Aaron Jason Ynojosa appeals from the judgment of the district court revoking his term of supervised release and sentencing him to 24 months in prison. For the first time on appeal, Ynojosa contests the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g), which mandates revocation of supervised release and imposition of a term of imprisonment for any offender who violates particular

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 24-10852 Document: 43-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/05/2025

No. 24-10852

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), Ynojosa 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 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), 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 Ynojosa has asserted and held that § 3583(g) is not unconstitutional under Haymond. See Garner, 969 F.3d at 551-53. Thus, Ynojosa’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 to file a brief is DENIED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.