eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2021-05

United States v. Victor Fourstar, Jr. ( 2021 )


Menu:
 
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAY 21 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       Nos. 19-30289
20-30157
Plaintiff-Appellee,
D.C. No. 4:02-cr-00052-DLC-1
v.
VICTOR CHARLES FOURSTAR, Jr.,                   MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Dana L. Christensen, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 18, 2021**
Before:      CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
In Appeal No. 19-30289, Victor Charles Fourstar, Jr., appeals from the
district court’s order denying his request for a recommendation to be placed in a
residential reentry center (“RRC”). In Appeal No. 20-30157, Fourstar appeals
from the district court’s July 21, 2020, judgment revoking supervised release. We
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
dismiss Appeal No. 19-30289 as moot. We have jurisdiction over Appeal No. 20-
30157 under
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    , and we affirm.
In Appeal No. 19-30289, the sole issue presented is whether the district
court abused its discretion in denying Fourstar’s request for a recommendation to
be placed in an RRC for the remainder of his sentence. Because Fourstar has
finished serving that sentence, we can provide no effective relief as to the claim
raised, and we dismiss this appeal as moot. See Spencer v. Kemna,
    523 U.S. 1
    , 14
(1998).
In Appeal No. 20-30157, Fourstar contends that the district court violated his
due process right to confrontation by admitting hearsay evidence at his fifth
revocation hearing without conducting the balancing test required by Federal Rule
of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b)(2)(C). Reviewing de novo, we conclude that any
error was harmless. See United States v. Perez,
    526 F.3d 543
    , 547 (9th Cir. 2008).
Fourstar does not contest the accuracy or reliability of the challenged documents,
nor did he offer any contrary evidence. See United States v. Walker,
    117 F.3d 417
    ,
420-21 (9th Cir. 1997).1 Moreover, the district court’s decision to revoke
supervised release is also supported by two additional violations that did not rely
1
Fourstar urges us to overrule Walker and hold that the Federal Rules of Evidence
apply at supervised release revocation proceedings. Even if we were inclined to do
so, as a three-judge panel, we cannot. See Miller v. Gammie,
    335 F.3d 889
    , 899-
900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
2                          19-30289 & 20-30157
upon the challenged documents. See United States v. Daniel,
    209 F.3d 1091
    , 1094
(9th Cir. 2000) (“Supervised release can be revoked based upon only one
violation.”).
APPEAL NO. 19-30289: DISMISSED.
APPEAL NO. 20-30157: AFFIRMED.
3                         19-30289 & 20-30157