United States v. Grooms
Opinion
Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Eric Lamar Grooms raises argu *386 ments that are foreclosed by United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 119 (5th Cir. 2005), which held that a defendant is not entitled to a jury trial to determine whether the terms of supervised release have been violated. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
*
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *386 published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eric Lamar GROOMS, Defendant-Appellant
- Status
- Unpublished