Case ID: f-appx_653/html/0251-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Joanna Espinoza REYNA, also known as Joanna Reyna Espinoza, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 15-11160
    Conference Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Date Filed: 06/21/2016
    
      James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Kevin Joel Page, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, David E. Sloan, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JONES, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Joanna Espinoza Reyna raises an argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Shabazz, 633 F.3d 342, 345-46 (5th Cir. 2011), which held that the phrase “on any such revocation” in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) does not impose an aggregate limit on imprisonment for revocation of supervised release but limits only the amount of imprisonment that may be imposed each time a court revokes a defendant’s supervised release. Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time to file a bi'ief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.