United States v. Ikeem Shaw ( 2019 )

Case: 18-11093 Document: 00514938041 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/01/2019
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 18-11093
FILED
May 1, 2019
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
IKEEM SHAW, also known as Luke,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:12-CR-175-26
Before SMITH, WIENER, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Ikeem Shaw appeals the revocation of his supervised release. He argues
that his right to confront adverse witnesses was violated when the district
court allowed a police detective to testify about the out-of-court statements of
three witnesses. As Shaw did not object to this evidence in the district court,
our review is for plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135
(2009).
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 18-11093 Document: 00514938041 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/01/2019
No. 18-11093
A defendant in a revocation proceeding has a qualified right under the
Due Process Clause to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses unless
the district court finds good cause for not permitting confrontation. United
States v. Grandlund, 71 F.3d 507, 510 (5th Cir. 1996); see also FED. R. CRIM.
P. 32.1(b)(2)(C). When determining whether to admit hearsay evidence, the
court “balances the releasee’s interest in confronting a particular witness
against the government’s good cause for denying it, particularly focusing on
the indicia of reliability of a given hearsay statement.” United States v. Alaniz-
Alaniz, 38 F.3d 788, 791 (5th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation, alteration, and
citation omitted).
Even if we assumed that the district court committed clear or obvious
error when it did not engage in the balancing test despite Shaw’s failure to
object, Shaw has not shown that any error affected his substantial rights. See
Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338, 1343 (2016). The record
contains sufficient evidence besides the alleged hearsay to support a finding
that Shaw violated his supervised release. Thus, Shaw has failed to
demonstrate reversible plain error. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.
AFFIRMED.
2