Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-10513/USCOURTS-ca5-19-10513-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Keith Anthony Woods
Appellant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-10513

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

KEITH ANTHONY WOODS,

Defendant-Appellant

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:*

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 Woods asserts that his supervised release was revoked 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 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 13, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-10513 Document: 00515309080 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/13/2020
No. 19-10513

2

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.

Case: 19-10513 Document: 00515309080 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/13/2020