United States v. Chadwick Holden

MEMORANDUM

Chadwick Holden appeals the district court’s revocation of his supervised release. He argues that the district court’s admission of hearsay testimony at his revocation hearing violated his due process rights, the district court improperly admitted statements he made to the police in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and there was insufficient evidence to revoke his supervised release. The facts underlying this case are known to the parties and need not be repeated here. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

We review de novo whether the district court violated Holden’s due process rights. United States v. Perez, 526 F.3d 543, 547 (9th Cir.2008). We review a district court’s decision to revoke a term of supervised release for abuse of discretion. Perez, 526 F.3d at 547 .

The Sixth Amendment right of confrontation does not apply in supervised release revocation hearings, United States v. Hall, 419 F.3d 980, 985 (9th Cir.2005); and hearsay may be admissible, see United States v. Comito, 177 F.3d 1166, 1170 (9th Cir. 1999). However, Holden has a “due process right to confront witnesses against him…