The Fifth Circuit affirmed the revocation of supervised release and the imposition of an eleven-month prison sentence. The court held that the defendant's constitutional challenge to the statute was foreclosed by prior binding precedent.
James Duncan appealed a judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to eleven months of imprisonment. He argued that the statute requiring revocation without a jury trial or proof beyond a reasonable doubt was unconstitutional under United States v. Haymond.
The court’s reasoning
The court noted that Duncan acknowledged his challenge was foreclosed by United States v. Garner. In Garner, the Fifth Circuit held that the statute is not unconstitutional under Haymond. Because the sole issue on appeal was foreclosed, summary affirmance was proper.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that challenges to supervised release revocation procedures under this specific statute are settled law in the Fifth Circuit.
