USA v. Anderson, No. 23-10907 (5th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 23-10907 Document: 38-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/15/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 23-10907 Summary Calendar ____________ FILED March 15, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Brent Anderson, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:18-CR-247-1 ______________________________ Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Brent Anderson appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to an eight-month term of imprisonment. Anderson challenges the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g), which mandates revocation of supervised release and a term of imprisonment for any offender who violates certain conditions of supervised _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 23-10907 Document: 38-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/15/2024 No. 23-10907 release, including possessing a controlled substance and having three positive drug tests over the course of one year. See § 3583(g)(1) & (4). Relying on United States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 2369 (2019), Anderson 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 and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. He concedes that his challenge is foreclosed under United States v. Garner, 969 F.3d 550 (5th Cir. 2020), and he 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. As Anderson concedes, in Garner, we rejected the argument that Anderson has advanced and held that § 3583(g) is not unconstitutional under Haymond. See Garner, 969 F.3d at 551-53. Thus, Anderson’s sole argument on appeal is foreclosed, and summary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162-63 (5th Cir. 1969). 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
