Full Opinion

Case: 26-10486 Document: 41-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/06/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ____________ Fifth Circuit FILED No. 26-10486 November 6, 2026 Summary Calendar Thomas B. Plunkett, III ____________ Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus David Thomas Overman, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:22-CR-90-1 ______________________________ Before Willett, Duncan, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * David Thomas Overman appeals from the judgment of the district court revoking his term of supervised release and imposing nine months of imprisonment. For the first time on appeal, he argues that 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g) is unconstitutional in light of United States v. Haymond, 588 U.S. 634 (2019), because it requires revocation of a term of supervised release and imposition of a term of imprisonment without affording a defendant the * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 26-10486 Document: 41-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/06/2026 No. 26-10486 constitutionally guaranteed right to a jury trial or requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The Government has moved without opposition for summary affirmance. Overman correctly concedes that his argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Garner, 969 F.3d 550, 551-53 (5th Cir. 2020). Because the Government’s position “is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case,” summary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, its alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 2