Pardee

United States v. Pardee

Good Law
224 F. App'x 650
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 13, 2007No. 06-30374California502 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

*651 MEMORANDUM *

Defendant Michael Pardee appeals the two-year sentence he received upon the revocation of his supervised release. We affirm.

Pardee challenges the district court’s consideration of two letters from his treatment counselors without allowing him to cross-examine these counselors. Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972), and Rule 32.1(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide defendants with a limited right to confront adverse witnesses prior to revocation of supervised release. The district court’s use of the letters, however, was harmless as to the revocation decision because Pardee admitted violating his supervised release conditions.

Hearsay may be used in sentencing as long as it is “accompanied by some minimal indicia of reliability.” United States v. Littlesun, 444 F.3d 1196, 1199 (9th Cir.2006) (quoting United States v. Berry, 258 F.3d 971, 976 (9th Cir.2001)) (internal quotation mark omitted). Pardee concedes that the two letters met this standard. The district court therefore properly considered the letters as part of its decision to give Pardee a two-year sentence for his violation of the supervised…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.