Case: 22-10030 Document: 00516381882 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/05/2022

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 5, 2022 No. 22-10030 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk

United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Donovan Lemont Bookman, Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:05-CR-15-1

Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:* Donovan Lemont Bookman was sentenced to 26 months of imprisonment after he pleaded true to violating certain terms of the supervised release imposed following his 2005 conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon. On appeal, he challenges the constitutionality of

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

Case: 22-10030 Document: 00516381882 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/05/2022

No. 22-10030

18 U.S.C. § 3583(g), which mandates revocation of supervised release and a term of imprisonment for any offender who violates certain conditions of supervised release, including prohibitions on possessing a controlled substance.

Relying on United States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 2369 (2019), Bookman contends 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. He concedes that his challenge is foreclosed by United States v. Garner, 969 F.3d 550 (5th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 1439 (2021), and he raises the issue to preserve it for further review. The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance and, alternatively, for an extension of time to file its brief.

In Garner, we rejected the argument that Bookman has advanced and held that § 3583(g) is not unconstitutional under Haymond. See Garner, 969 F.3d at 551-53. Thus, Bookman’s sole argument on appeal is foreclosed.

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, its alternative motion for extension of time is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).