United States v. Michael Mankin ( 2020 )

Case: 19-11262 Document: 00515502565 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/24/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 19-11262 July 24, 2020
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Michael Adair Mankin,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:05-CR-193-1
Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Costa, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Michael Adair Mankin appeals the revocation of his supervised
release and resulting 10-month term of imprisonment. Mankin’s supervised
release was revoked under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g), which requires the
*
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not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in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: 19-11262 Document: 00515502565 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/24/2020
No. 19-11262
revocation of supervised release and prison time for defendants found to have
committed specified drug- or gun-related violations.
On appeal, Mankin argues for the first time that § 3583(g) is
unconstitutional in light of United States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 2369 (2019),
because it does not require a jury determination of guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt. Review of this unpreserved issue is for plain error, which requires him
to show (1) an error that has not been affirmatively waived, (2) that is clear
or obvious, and (3) that affected his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United
States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he can satisfy those three prongs, this
court has the discretion to correct the error if it seriously affects the fairness,
integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See id.
Haymond addressed the constitutionality of § 3583(k), and the
plurality opinion specifically disclaimed expressing any view of the
constitutionality of § 3583(g). See Haymond, 139 S. Ct. at 2382 n.7. In the
absence of precedent from either the Supreme Court or this court extending
Haymond to § 3583(g), we conclude that there is no clear or obvious error.
See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135; United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 671 (5th Cir.
2009).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2