United States v. Villarreal ( 2023 )

Case: 22-10653 Document: 00516645498 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/14/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-10653
FILED
February 14, 2023
Summary Calendar
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Enrique Roberto Villarreal,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:11-CR-51-1
______________________________
Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Enrique Roberto Villarreal was his convicted in 2012 for possessing a
firearm as a convicted felon. He was sentenced to 78 months of
imprisonment and three years of supervised release. His term of supervised
release was revoked in both 2020 and 2022. For the first time on appeal, he
challenges the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g), which mandates
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10653 Document: 00516645498 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/14/2023
No. 22-10653
revocation of supervised release and a term of imprisonment for any offender
who violates certain conditions of supervised release, including possessing a
controlled substance or refusing to comply with the drug-testing
requirement.
Relying on United States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 2369 (2019), Villarreal
contends that Section 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. He concedes his challenge is foreclosed by
United States v. Garner, 969 F.3d 550 (5th Cir. 2020), and raises the issue to
preserve it for further review. The Government has filed an unopposed
motion for summary affirmance and, alternatively, for an extension of time
to file its brief.
In Garner, we rejected the argument that Villarreal advances and held
that Section 3583(g) is not unconstitutional under Haymond. See Garner, 969
F.3d at 551–53. Thus, Villarreal’s sole argument on appeal is foreclosed.
Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is
GRANTED, its alternative motion for extension of time is DENIED, and
the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2