Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-24-10577/USCOURTS-ca5-24-10577-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Terrence Javance Shelby
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 24-10577

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Terrence Javance Shelby, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:14-CR-154-1

______________________________

Before Jolly, Jones, and Willett, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Terrence Javance Shelby appeals from the judgment revoking his term 

of supervised release and sentencing him to 11 months in prison and 18

additional months of supervised release. For the first time on appeal, Shelby

contests the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g), which mandates 

revocation of supervised release and imposition of a term of imprisonment 

_____________________

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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 3, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 24-10577 Document: 42-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/03/2024
No. 24-10577

2

for any offender who violates specified conditions of supervised release, 

including possession of a controlled substance.

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

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 Shelby has asserted and held 

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

at 551-53. Because Shelby’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: 24-10577 Document: 42-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/03/2024