From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Woods

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Feb 13, 2020
No. 19-10513 (5th Cir. Feb. 13, 2020)

Opinion

No. 19-10513

02-13-2020

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. KEITH ANTHONY WOODS, Defendant-Appellant


Summary Calendar Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:07-CR-112-3 Before KING, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. --------

Keith Anthony Woods appeals the district court's revocation of a previously imposed term of supervised release and its imposition of a 15-month term of imprisonment. Woods asserts that his supervised release was revoked pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g), which requires revocation and imposition of a term of imprisonment where the defendant is found to have committed certain types of violations of the terms of supervised release, including the possession of a firearm or a controlled substance. He argues that, because § 3583(g) does not require a jury determination under a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard, it is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in United States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 2369, 2373 (2019).

As Woods concedes, review is for plain error. To prevail on plain error review, he must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If Woods makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error but only if it "'seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.'" Id. (citation omitted).

The decision in 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).

As Woods has not demonstrated that the district court committed plain error, his revocation and term of imprisonment are AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

United States v. Woods

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Feb 13, 2020
No. 19-10513 (5th Cir. Feb. 13, 2020)
Case details for

United States v. Woods

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. KEITH ANTHONY WOODS,…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Feb 13, 2020

Citations

No. 19-10513 (5th Cir. Feb. 13, 2020)