US v. Rodriguez Grier, No. 09-5098 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-5098 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. RODRIGUEZ CLINTONIAN GRIER, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:99-cr-00161-FDW-1) Submitted: February 2, 2011 Decided: February 17, 2011 Before DAVIS and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tony E. Rollman, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, Edward R. Ryan, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Rodriguez Clintonian Grier appeals the district court s judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to twelve months and one day of imprisonment followed by four years of supervised release. Grier s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning hearsay whether evidence hearing. the district during the court revocation erred of in considering supervised release Grier was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. to file a brief. The Government declined We affirm. We review the district court s decision to revoke a defendant s supervised release for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Pregent, 190 F.3d 279, 282 (4th Cir. 1999). The district court need only find a violation of a condition of supervised release by a preponderance of the evidence. 18 U.S.C. ยง 3583(e)(3) (2006); Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694, 700 district (2000). court s The conclusion reviewed for clear error. 1017, 1019 (8th factual Cir. determinations that a violation informing the occurred are United States v. Carothers, 337 F.3d 2003). A district court s evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion and harmless error. 2 United States v. Johnson, 587 F.3d 625, 637 (4th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 2128 (2010). A defendant at a supervised release hearing is afforded a limited right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses. Morissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 (1972). The defendant must, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1, have the opportunity at a revocation hearing to question any adverse witness, unless the court determines that the interest of justice does not require the witness to appear. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b)(2)(C). should apply considering witnesses a balancing the and test releasee s should Under this rule, the court at the asserted balance the hearing right to person s itself when cross-examine interest in the constitutionally guaranteed right to confrontation against the government s good cause for denying it. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1 advisory committee s note (2002). Here, the district court admitted certain hearsay evidence concerning halfway house. In so, assess, under Rule doing the 32.1(b)(2)(C), over Grier s district whether evidence was in the interest of justice. objection behavior court at failed admission of a to the However, our review of the record convinces us that admission of the hearsay evidence for the purposes of assessing charged violations was harmless. 3 whether Grier committed the The district court had ample grounds for revoking Grier s supervised release, including Grier s own admissions and violations directly observed by the probation officer, who cross-examination. did testify and was available for Furthermore, admission of hearsay evidence for sentencing purposes is not improper and, in any event, the district court s thorough explanation for the imposed did not reference the disputed evidence. sentence it Accordingly, we find no reversible error. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, believes but counsel that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. Finally, 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 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
