Case: 22-11245 Document: 00516766720 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/26/2023

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 22-11245 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ May 26, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Antonio Rojas, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 7:22-CR-17-1 ______________________________ Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * The district court sentenced Antonio Rojas to 30 months of imprison- ment and a three-year term of supervised release (“SR”) following his 2018 conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 kilograms or more of marihuana. In 2022, the court revoked the term of SR . For the first time on appeal, Rojas challenges the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g), _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 22-11245 Document: 00516766720 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/26/2023

No. 22-11245

which mandates revocation of SR and requires a term of imprisonment for any offender who violates certain conditions of SR, including possessing a controlled substance.

Relying on United States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 2369 (2019), Rojas contends that § 3583(g) is unconstitutional because it requires revocation of SR and imposition of imprisonment without affording the defendant the con- stitutionally guaranteed right to a jury trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Rojas concedes that his challenge is foreclosed by United States v. Garner, 969 F.3d 550 (5th Cir. 2020); he raises the point only to preserve it for further review. The government has filed an unopposed motion for sum- mary affirmance and, alternatively, for an extension of time to file its brief.

In Garner, 969 F.3d at 551–53, we rejected the argument that Rojas has advanced and held that § 3583(g) is not unconstitutional under Haymond.

Thus, Rojas’s sole argument on appeal is foreclosed. Accordingly, the mo- tion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for ex- tension of time is DENIED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED. See Groen- dyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).