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release was revoked pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g), which requires the 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 release and imposition of a term of 

* 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

March 12, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-10653 Document: 00515342043 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/12/2020
No. 19-10653

2

imprisonment for defendant founds 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 decision in United States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 

2369 (2019), because it does not require a jury determination under a beyonda-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 correct 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 was 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 caselaw 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 abovepolicy range 18-month sentence. We need not decide whether Rendon

preserved this challenge to his sentence because we conclude that it fails under 

any potentially applicable standard. 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: 03/12/2020
No. 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, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 19-10653 Document: 00515342043 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/12/2020