United States v. Vincent E. Lee

942 F.2d 794 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vincent E. LEE, Defendant-Appellant. No. 90-10596. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Aug. 23, 1991. * Decided Aug. 28, 1991. Before JAMES R. BROWNING, FARRIS and WILLIAM A. NORRIS, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Vincent E. Lee appeals the district court's affirmance of his misdemeanor conviction before a magistrate for being the registered owner of a car without valid no-fault insurance, in violation of Hawaii Revised Statute § 431:10C-104. Lee contends that the trial court's admission of hearsay evidence constituted reversible error. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm the conviction. 3 The admission of hearsay may violate the rights guaranteed under the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment. See United States v. Magana-Olvera, 917 F.2d 401, 409 (9th Cir.1990). Nevertheless, "[c]onfrontation clause…