USA v. Harris, No. 22-10794 (5th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 22-10794 Document: 00516665635 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/03/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 22-10794 Summary Calendar ____________ FILED March 3, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Wesley Jorome Harris, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:17-CR-470-1 ______________________________ Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Wesley Jorome Harris was sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment and a three-year term of supervised release following his 2018 conviction for possession of a synthetic cannabinoid with intent to distribute. His term of supervised release was revoked in 2022. On appeal he challenges for the first time the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g), which mandates revocation _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 22-10794 Document: 00516665635 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/03/2023 No. 22-10794 of supervised release and a term of imprisonment for any offender who violates certain conditions of supervised release, including possessing a controlled substance. Relying on United States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 2369 (2019), Harris 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. He concedes that his challenge is foreclosed by United States v. Garner, 969 F.3d 550 (5th Cir. 2020), and 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. In Garner, we rejected the argument that Harris advances and held that § 3583(g) is not unconstitutional under Haymond. See Garner, 969 F.3d at 551-53. Thus, Harris’s sole argument on appeal is foreclosed. Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, its alternative motion for extension of time is DENIED as moot, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). 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.
