United States v. Williams

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-11251
Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

BRITTANY SHANICE WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:15-CR-239-5

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
*

Brittany Shanice Williams appeals the revocation of her supervised
release and the 10-month sentence of imprisonment imposed upon revocation.
Her supervised release was revoked in accord with 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g), which
requires the mandatory revocation of supervised release and imposition of a
term of imprisonment for defendants found to have committed certain offenses,
including possession of a controlled substance.

*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5
TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 9, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 19-11251 Document: 00515445860 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/09/2020

No. 19-11251
2
Williams argues that § 3583(g) is unconstitutional in light of United
States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 2369, 2380 (2019), because it does not require a
jury determination of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. As she concedes, review
of this unpreserved issue is for plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 556
U.S. 129, 135 (2009). Accordingly, she must show (1) a forfeited error, (2) that
is “clear or obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dispute,” and (3) that
affected her substantial rights. Id. If she does that, this court has the
discretion to correct the error and should do so “only if the error seriously
affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id.
(internal quotation marks, citation, and alteration omitted).
The Supreme Court’s decision in Haymond addressed the
constitutionality of § 3583(k), and the plurality opinion specifically declined to
“express a view on the mandatory revocation provision for certain drug and
gun violations in § 3583(g).” Haymond, 139 S. Ct at 2382 n.7 (plurality
opinion). The application of § 3583(g) was not plain error. See United States
v. Badgett, 957 F.3d 536 (5th Cir. 2020).
AFFIRMED.
Case: 19-11251 Document: 00515445860 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/09/2020