United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 12, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-60296
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TERRY JERMAINE DENSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:98-CR-36-1
--------------------
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Terry Jermaine Denson appeals from his sentence imposed
following revocation of his term of supervised release. He was
sentenced to 14 months of imprisonment and three years of
supervised release. Denson argues that the district court erred
by relying on hearsay evidence to determine that his supervised
release should be revoked because he had committed grand larceny
rather than petty larceny. He asserts that his Due Process
rights were violated under Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471
(1972).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-60296
-2-
Due process affords a defendant in a parole-revocation
hearing “the right to confront and cross-examine adverse
witnesses (unless the hearing officer specifically finds good
cause for not allowing confrontation).” Morrissey v. Brewer, 408
U.S. 471, 489 (1972). This due process protection applies in
revocation of supervised release proceedings. United States v.
McCormick, 54 F.3d 214, 221 (5th Cir. 1995). Although Morrissey
recognized a right to confrontation at revocation proceedings,
the right is a limited one in that revocation hearings should be
flexible enough that a court may consider “material that would
not be admissible in an adversary criminal trial.” Morrissey,
408 U.S. at 489. Hearsay evidence is such material, hence the
district court’s reliance on the police report and its related
credibility determination regarding Denson’s mother were not
abuses of discretion, see United States v. Arbizu, 431 F.3d 469,
470 (5th Cir. 2005), and the court wasn’t required to allow
Denson to cross-examine the author of the police report, see id.;
cf. United States v. Kelley, 446 F.3d 688, 691-92 (7th Cir. 2006)
(holding that Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), which
applies only to testimonial hearsay, doesn’t apply to revocation
proceedings); Ash v. Reilly, 431 F.3d 826, 829-30 (D.C. Cir.
2005) (same); United States v. Rondeau, 430 F.3d 44, 47-48 (1st
Cir. 2005) (same); United States v. Hall, 419 F.3d 980, 985-86
(9th Cir. 2005) (same); United States v. Kirby, 418 F.3d 621,
627-28 (6th Cir. 2005) (same); United States v. Aspinall, 389
No. 06-60296
-3-
F.3d 332, 342-43 (2d Cir. 2004) (same); United States v. Martin,
382 F.3d 840, 844 n.4 (8th Cir. 2004) (same).
AFFIRMED.