United States v. Doss ( 2005 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT November 22, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-60873
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
EVAN DOSS, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:98-CR-5-LS
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Evan Doss, Jr., appeals the revocation of his supervised
release from his underlying conviction for conspiracy to commit
bankruptcy fraud and fraudulent transfer of assets. He argues
that the district court erroneously concluded that he failed to
make genuine efforts to obtain employment and make restitution
payments and that he failed to explain adequately his reported
income of a $1,000 consultant fee. After reviewing the record,
we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to show by a
preponderance of the evidence that Doss violated his supervised
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 04-60783
-2-
release, and the district court did not abuse its discretion.
See United States v. Grandlund, 71 F.3d 507, 509 (5th Cir. 1995);
United States v. McCormick, 54 F.3d 214, 219 (5th Cir. 1995).
Doss also argues that his right to confrontation was
violated by the admission of hearsay testimony from his probation
officer. Because Doss did not object to the testimony in the
district court, our review is for plain error. See United States
v. Ferguson, 369 F.3d 847, 849 (5th Cir. 2004); see also United
States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-37 (1993). Due process
affords Doss the right to confront and cross-examine adverse
witnesses unless there is a specific finding of good cause for
not allowing confrontation. Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471,
489 (1972); McCormick, 54 F.3d at 221. Because we conclude that
the challenged hearsay testimony was not the only evidence
supporting the revocation of Doss’s supervised release, Doss
cannot show that the confrontation violations, if any, affected
his substantial rights and constituted plain error. See Olano,
507 U.S. at 734; McBride v. Johnson, 118 F.3d 432, 438 (5th Cir.
1997).
Finally, Doss argues that the district court erroneously
prevented him from attacking the underlying restitution order
during the revocation proceeding. The district court did not
err. See United States v. Holland, 850 F.2d 1048, 1050 (5th Cir.
1988); United States v. Irvin, 820 F.2d 110, 111 (5th Cir. 1987).
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.