⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

We hear oral argument before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in United States versus Prejean. Jarrod Prejean was on federal supervised release when he was accused of violating the conditions by committing new crimes: an aggravated robbery in Pflugerville, Texas, and possessing a criminal instrument. The government's theory involved what Texas officers call jugging, from jug, old slang for a bank: watching customers leave a bank and robbing them. The district court found by a preponderance of the evidence that both violations had occurred and revoked his supervised release, sentencing him to twenty-four months. On appeal, Prejean challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting both violations. His counsel argues that both eyewitnesses described a robber who looked nothing like him, and that the items in the rental car, which a relative was driving, were ordinary belongings. The government responds that cell-phone location data, surveillance video, and the items together support the findings. At the heart of the case is whether that evidence can collectively establish the violations under the relaxed preponderance standard used in revocation hearings, or whether the inferences drawn were unreasonable.

United States v. Prejean (No. 25-20364) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued August 4, 2026.