United States v. Vance , 294 F. App'x 3 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4541
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WAYNE A. VANCE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, District
Judge. (6:08-cr-00001-nkm-1)
Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: September 18, 2008
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Randy V. Cargill,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellant. Julia C. Dudley, Acting United States Attorney, Steven
R. Ramseyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Wayne A. Vance appeals from the district court’s order
revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to twenty-four
months imprisonment after finding by a preponderance of the
evidence that Vance violated the terms of his supervised release by
committing domestic assault on his wife. Vance challenges the
revocation, contending that he was denied the right to confront the
witness against him in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments
when, after his wife invoked the marital privilege, the court
admitted hearsay statements made by Vance’s wife concerning the
assault. We affirm.
In Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), the
Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause
does not permit the introduction of out-of-court testimonial
evidence unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant has
had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. 541 U.S. at 68.
Vance asserts that, under this ruling, he was entitled to confront
the witness against him at the revocation hearing. The Crawford
holding does not apply to supervised release revocations because
they are not “criminal prosecutions” under the Sixth Amendment.
See United States v. Kelley, 446 F.3d 688, 691-92 (7th Cir. 2006);
United States v. Rondeau, 430 F.3d 44, 47-48 (1st Cir. 2005).
The district court’s decision to admit hearsay evidence
is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Mohr,
2
318 F.3d 613, 618 (4th Cir. 2003). Hearsay evidence must be
“demonstrably reliable” to be admissible. United States v.
McCallum, 677 F.2d 1024, 1026 (4th Cir. 1982). We have reviewed
the parties’ briefs and the materials submitted in the joint
appendix, particularly the transcript of the hearing. We conclude
that the hearsay evidence was sufficiently reliable and therefore
the court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3