Background
Desmond Dejuan Strickland appealed the Northern District of Texas’s judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 24 months in prison.
For the first time on appeal, Strickland argued that the mandatory-revocation provision in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g) is unconstitutional under United States v. Haymond, 588 U.S. 634 (2019). He also argued that 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) does not permit a court to consider a defendant’s breach of trust when selecting a revocation sentence.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit held that both arguments were foreclosed by circuit precedent. United States v. Garner, 969 F.3d 550, 551-53 (5th Cir. 2020), foreclosed Strickland’s constitutional challenge to § 3583(g), and United States v. Cano, 981 F.3d 422, 426 (5th Cir. 2020), foreclosed his argument concerning consideration of breach of trust.
Because Strickland correctly conceded that circuit precedent foreclosed both claims, the court concluded that summary affirmance was proper under Groendyke Transportation, Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). It granted the Government’s unopposed motion for summary affirmance, denied the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief, and affirmed the district court’s judgment.
Key Takeaways
- Fifth Circuit precedent forecloses the argument that 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g) is unconstitutional under Haymond.
- Fifth Circuit precedent also forecloses the argument that § 3583(e) bars consideration of a defendant’s breach of trust in revocation sentencing.
- Summary affirmance was appropriate because both appellate arguments were concededly controlled by existing circuit precedent.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that Garner and Cano remain controlling in the Fifth Circuit on these recurring supervised-release issues. Defendants may preserve such arguments for further review, but an ordinary Fifth Circuit panel remains bound to reject them absent intervening en banc or Supreme Court authority.