United States v. William Left Hand

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: May 10, 2022
• Docket: 21-2507
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 21-2507 ___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

William Left Hand

Defendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Northern ____________

Submitted: March 18, 2022 Filed: May 10, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________

Before GRASZ, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

After concluding that William Left Hand violated the conditions of supervised release, the district court1 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

1 The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. court relied on a preliminary-hearing transcript rather than live witness testimony to make its findings, we affirm.

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. ______________________________

-2-