United States v. Johnson ( 2023 )

Case: 23-10626 Document: 00516951169 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/31/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 23-10626
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ October 31, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Arthur Johnson,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:19-CR-34-1
______________________________
Before Haynes, Graves, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Following his 2019 guilty plea conviction for failing to register as a sex
offender, Arthur Johnson was sentenced to 48 months of imprisonment and
a five-year term of supervised release. His term of supervision was revoked
in 2023. For the first time on appeal, he challenges the constitutionality of
18 U.S.C. § 3583(g), which mandates revocation of supervised release and
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10626 Document: 00516951169 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/31/2023
No. 23-10626
a term of imprisonment for any offender who violates certain conditions of
supervised release, including by possessing a controlled substance.
Relying on United States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 2369 (2019), Johnson
contends 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. He concedes that 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 Johnson has advanced and
held that § 3583(g) is not unconstitutional under Haymond. See Garner,
969 F.3d at 551-53. Thus, Johnson’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. See Groendyke Transp.,
Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).
2