United States v. Adeyinka

PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Adekunle Olyumuyiwa Adeyinka raises arguments that he concedes are foreclosed by United States v. Marmolejo, 915 F.2d 981, 988 (5th Cir.1990), which explained that double jeopardy does not apply in supervised release revocation proceedings, and United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 119 (5th Cir.2005), which held that a defendant is not entitled to a jury trial to determine whether the terms of supervised release have been violated. The Government’s motion for summary af-firmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Footnotes [*] Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.