United States v. Barrieta-Barrera ( 2022 )

Case: 21-10878 Document: 00516203469 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 15, 2022
No. 21-10878
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Juan Jesus Barrieta-Barrera,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:18-CR-194-1
Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Juan Jesus Barrieta-Barrera was sentenced to 12 months of
imprisonment after he pleaded true to violating the terms of the supervised
release imposed following his 2019 conviction for illegal reentry after
deportation. On appeal, he challenges the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C.
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-10878 Document: 00516203469 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/15/2022
§ 3583(g), which mandates revocation of supervised release and a term of
imprisonment for any offender who violates certain conditions of supervised
release, including possessing a controlled substance.
Relying on United States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 2369 (2019), Barrieta-
Barrera 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
under United States v. Garner, 969 F.3d 550 (5th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141
S. Ct. 1439 (2021), 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 Barrieta-Barrera has
advanced and held that § 3583(g) is not unconstitutional under Haymond. See
Garner, 969 F.3d at 551-53. Thus, Barrieta-Barrera’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).