Opinion
21-2507
05-10-2022
United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. William Left Hand Defendant-Appellant
Unpublished
Submitted: March 18, 2022
Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Northern
Before GRASZ, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
After concluding that William Left Hand violated the conditions of supervised release, the district court sentenced him to nine months in prison. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Although he argues that his due-process rights were violated when the court relied on a preliminary-hearing transcript rather than live witness testimony to make its findings, we affirm.
The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.
Left Hand did not object, so we review for plain error. See United States v. Burrage, 951 F.3d 913, 916 (8th Cir. 2020). Ordinarily, district courts have to consider two factors in evaluating confrontation-based challenges at revocation hearings. See United States v. Coleman, 7 F.4th 740, 745 (8th Cir. 2021) (describing the Bell balancing test). But in circumstances like these, when there is no objection, we have held that there is no obligation to do so. See United States v. Simms, 757 F.3d 728, 733 (8th Cir. 2014).
Besides, the district court's reliance on the preliminary-hearing transcript had little to no effect on the outcome. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734- 35 (1993) (explaining that a forfeited error must affect a defendant's substantial rights). There was plenty of other evidence, including signed admissions of drug use and tribal convictions, supporting the finding that Left Hand violated the conditions of supervised release.
We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court.