United States v. Smith

*629 MEMORANDUM *

Horace Smith appeals from the district court’s revocation of his supervised release. He argues that his due process right to confrontation was violated by the admission of hearsay evidence at his revocation hearing and that the district court plainly erred in allowing the prosecutor to discuss an ongoing investigation in another jurisdiction during sentencing. We find Smith’s arguments without merit and affirm the district court’s revocation of his supervised release and resulting sentence.

I.

“[A] due process standard is used to determine whether hearsay evidence admitted during revocation proceedings violates a defendant’s rights.” United States v. Hall, 419 F.3d 980, 985 (9th Cir.2005). Where a releasee’s right to confrontation is implicated, the court must employ the Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972), balancing test—weighing the releasee’s “right to confrontation against the Government’s good cause for denying it.” United States v. Martin, 984 F.2d 308, 310 (9th Cir.1993).

Appellant had the opportunity to confront Robin Brown, the source of the hearsay in Probation Officer Corniel’s testimony, the district court’s…