### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 10653 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. REYNALDO RENDON, JR., also known as Rey Reynold, also known as Rey Rendon , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:17

- CR

- 19

- 1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HO, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Reynaldo Rendon, Jr., appeals the revocation of his supervised release
and the 18

- month sentence imposed upon revocation

. Rendon’s supervised
release was revoked pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g), which requires the mandatory revocation of supervised releas e and imposition of a term of

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

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 R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 12, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-10653 Document: 00515342043 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/12/2020No. 19

- 10653

2 imprisonment for defendant found s to have committed certain offenses, including the possession of a controlled substance. For the first time, Rendon argues that § 3583(g) is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court’s de cision in United States v. Haymond , 139 S. Ct. 2369 (2019), because it does not require a jury determination under a beyond

a
- reasonable

- doubt standard. As he concedes, review of this issue is for plain

error. To prevail on plain error review, Rendon 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 he makes such a showing, this court
has the discretion to co rrect the error but only if it “‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” Id

. The decision in Haymond addressed the constitutionality of § 3583(k), and the plurality opinion specifically stated that it w as not expressing any view on the constitutionality of other subsections of § 3583, the statute governing supervised release , including § 3583(g). See Haymond , 139 S. Ct. at 2382 n.7. Because there currently is no cas e law from either the Supreme Court or this court extending Haymond to § 3583(g) revocations, we conclude that there is
no error that is clear or obvious

. 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). Rendon also challenges the substantive reasonableness of his above

policy range 18

- month sentence. We need not decide whether Rendon preserved this challenge to his sentence b ecause we conclude that it fails under any potentially applicable standa rd. See United States v. Rodriguez , 523 F.3d 519, 525 (5th Cir. 2008); see also Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
Rendon has not shown that his sentence was unreasonable, much less plainly Case: 19-10653 Document: 00515342043 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/12/2020No. 19

- 10653

3 so. See Gall , 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Warren , 720 F.3d 321, 324

- 25,
332

- 33 (5th Cir. 2013)

. Accordingly, t he judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Case: 19-10653 Document: 00515342043 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/12/2020