United States v. Wendolyn Howard

MEMORANDUM

Wendolyn Howard appeals the revocation of his term of supervised release, and the sentence imposed thereafter, on the ground that the district court violated his due process right to confront witnesses against him. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we vacate Howard’s sentence and remand for resen-tencing.

We review a district court’s decision to revoke a term of supervised release for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Verduzco, 330 F.3d 1182, 1184 (9th Cir.2003). Whether a defendant has received due process at a revocation proceeding is a mixed question of law and fact that we review de novo. See United States v. Havier, 155 F.3d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir.1998). “A due process violation at a revocation proceeding is subject to harmless error analysis.” Id.

In supervised release revocation proceedings, a defendant “enjoys a due pro cess right to confront witnesses against him.” United States v. Hall, 419 F.3d 980, 986 (9th Cir.2005). To determine “whether the admission of hearsay evidence violates the releasee’s right to confrontation in a particular case, the court must weigh the releasee’s interest in his constitutionally guaranteed right…