United States v. Mauricio Aguirre ( 2019 )

Case: 18-11611 Document: 00515111465 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/10/2019
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 18-11611 FILED
Summary Calendar September 10, 2019
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
MAURICIO AGUIRRE, also known as Mauricio Aguirre-Orcutt, also known as
Peter Holston-Aguirre, also known as Peter Holston, also known as Miller
Aguirre,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:16-CR-454-1
Before DAVIS, SMITH and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Appealing the judgment on revocation of supervised release, Mauricio
Aguirre argues that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights by
finding, without a jury trial, that he violated his conditions of supervised
release by a preponderance of the evidence. The Government has filed an
unopposed motion for summary affirmance, requesting alternatively an
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 18-11611 Document: 00515111465 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/10/2019
No. 18-11611
extension of time to file its brief. Summary affirmance is proper where, among
other instances, “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter
of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the
case.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).
In United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 117-19 (5th Cir. 2005), we held
that revocation of supervised release is not part of a criminal prosecution and
therefore does not require a jury trial or proof beyond a reasonable doubt under
the Sixth Amendment. Aguirre concedes that Hinson forecloses his argument
but, at the time he filed his brief, noted that the Supreme Court had granted
certiorari in United States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 398 (2018).
In Haymond, the Supreme Court held that a revocation of supervised
release and imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3583(k), based on judge-made findings by a preponderance of the
evidence, violated due process and the right to a trial by jury. United States v.
Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 2369, 2378-83 (2019). Unlike § 3583(k), which mandated
a mandatory minimum of five years for certain offenses such as possession of
child pornography, Aguirre’s revocation under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) did not
include a mandatory minimum based on judge-found facts. See § 3583(k).
Further, the Haymond plurality emphasized that its decision was limited to
§ 3583(k) and its mandatory minimum provision. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. at2382-84 & n.7. In light of Haymond’s limited holding, Aguirre’s sole argument
remains foreclosed under Hinson. See id.; Hinson, 429 F.3d at 117-19.
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. See Groendyke, 406 F.2d at 1162.
2