USA v. Binh Nguyen, No. 19-10484 (5th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 19-10484 Document: 00515321126 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/26/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 19-10484 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED February 26, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. BINH NGUYEN, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:16-CR-89-1 Before JOLLY, JONES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Binh Nguyen appeals the revocation of his term of supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g)(1) upon the district court’s finding by a preponderance of the evidence that he possessed controlled substances. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 2369, 2378 (2019), he asserts that the district court erred by applying the mandatory 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 19-10484 Document: 00515321126 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/26/2020 No. 19-10484 revocation provision of § 3583(g)(1) without affording him the right to a jury finding that he committed the violations beyond a reasonable doubt. Because Nguyen raises this claim for the first time, we review for plain error. See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259 (5th Cir. 2009). He must show an error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes such a showing, we have the discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See id. Haymond addressed the constitutionality of § 3583(k) of the supervised release statute, and the plurality opinion specifically stated that it was not expressing any view on the constitutionality of other subsections of the statute, including § 3583(g). See Haymond, 139 S. Ct. at 2382 n.7. Because there currently is no case law from either the Supreme Court or this court extending Haymond to § 3583(g) revocations, we conclude that there is no error that was plain. See United States v. Escalante-Reyes, 689 F.3d 415, 418 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc); United States v. Gonzalez, 792 F.3d 534, 538 (5th Cir. 2015). Nguyen fails to establish plain error; thus, 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.
