Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-24-10466/USCOURTS-ca5-24-10466-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Damoni Owens
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 24-10466 

Summary Calendar 

____________ 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Damoni Owens, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:15-CR-37-1 

______________________________ 

Before Davis, Smith, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Damoni Owens appeals from the judgment revoking his term of 

supervised release and sentencing him to two years of imprisonment. For the 

first time on appeal, Owens contests the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3583(g), which mandates revocation of supervised release and imposition 

_____________________ 

*

 This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

January 14, 2025 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 24-10466 Document: 45-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/14/2025
No. 24-10466 

2 

of a term of imprisonment for any offender who violates specified conditions 

of supervised release, including the requirement to submit to drug testing. 

Relying on United States v. Haymond, 588 U.S. 634 (2019), Owens 

maintains 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 and requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt. He acknowledges, 

however, that his challenge is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. 

Garner, 969 F.3d 550 (5th Cir. 2020), and merely asserts the issue to preserve 

it for further review. The Government has filed an unopposed motion for 

summary affirmance or, in the alternative, for an extension of time to file its 

brief. 

In Garner, we rejected the argument that Owens has asserted and held 

that § 3583(g) is not unconstitutional under Haymond. See Garner, 969 F.3d 

at 551-53. Because Owens’s sole argument on appeal is foreclosed, summary 

affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 

1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Thus, the Government’s motion for summary 

affirmance is GRANTED, its alternative motion for an extension of time to 

file a brief is DENIED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 

Case: 24-10466 Document: 45-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/14/2025