Case: 24-10471 Document: 43-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/24/2024

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 24-10471 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ October 24, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Johnner Joe Ward, Jr., Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:22-CR-47-1 ______________________________ Before Smith, Stewart, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Johnner Ward, Jr., appeals the judgment revoking his term of super- vised release (“SR”) and sentencing him to seven months in prison and two years of SR. For the first time on appeal, Ward contests the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g), which mandates revocation of SR and a term of imprisonment for any offender who violates specified conditions of SR, including, inter alia, refusal to comply with drug testing and possession of a _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 24-10471 Document: 43-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/24/2024

No. 24-10471

controlled substance.

Relying on United States v. Haymond, 588 U.S. 634 (2019), Ward maintains that § 3583(g) is unconstitutional because it requires revocation of SR and a term of imprisonment without affording the right to a jury trial and requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Ward acknowledges, however, that his challenge is foreclosed by United States v. Garner, 969 F.3d 550 (5th Cir. 2020); he merely asserts the issue to preserve it for further review. The government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance or, in the alternative, for an extension of time to file its brief.

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

Accordingly, Ward’s sole argument on appeal is foreclosed. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Thus, the govern- ment’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, its alternative motion for an extension is DENIED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED.