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[Unpublished]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-