The Fifth Circuit affirmed the revocation of Andre Demarcus Rubell's supervised release and his subsequent sentence. The court held that Rubell's constitutional challenge to the statute was foreclosed by binding precedent.
Andre Demarcus Rubell appealed a judgment revoking his term of supervised release and sentencing him to twelve months of imprisonment. He argued for the first time on appeal that the statute governing revocation is unconstitutional because it does not require a jury trial or proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court’s reasoning
The court noted that Rubell’s challenge was foreclosed by United States v. Garner, which held that the statute is not unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Haymond. Because the sole issue on appeal was foreclosed, summary affirmance was proper.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that challenges to the constitutionality of supervised release revocation statutes under Haymond are foreclosed in the Fifth Circuit by existing precedent.
