Case: 12-15474 Date Filed: 06/04/2013 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
___________________________
No. 12-15474
Non-Argument Calendar
___________________________
Docket No. 1:10-cr-00172-RWS-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
VANCE LEWIS WHETSTONE,
Defendant-Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_______________________________
(June 4, 2013)
Before WILSON, ANDERSON, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
Case: 12-15474 Date Filed: 06/04/2013 Page: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Vance Lewis Whetstone appeals the revocation of his supervised release and
his resulting 18-month sentence. The district court concluded that Whetstone
violated the conditions of his supervised release by (1) possessing counterfeit drugs
with intent to distribute and (2) by failing to report to his probation officer. No
reversible error has been shown; we affirm.
On appeal, Whetstone argues that the district court violated his due process
rights by improperly admitting hearsay evidence at his revocation hearing.
Whetstone contends that -- absent the impermissible hearsay testimony --
insufficient evidence existed to prove that he possessed counterfeit drugs with
intent to distribute. As a result, Whetstone argues that the district court erred in
considering the counterfeit drug offense when calculating the guidelines range and
that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable.
We review a district court’s evidentiary decisions, as well as the revocation
of supervised release, for abuse of discretion. United States v. Novaton, 271 F.3d
968, 1005 (11th Cir. 2001) (evidentiary decisions); United States v. Frazier, 26
F.3d 110, 112 (11th Cir. 1994) (revocation of supervised release).
“Although the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply in supervised release
revocation hearings, the admissibility of hearsay is not automatic.” Frazier, 26
F.3d at 114. Even at revocation hearings, defendants “are entitled to certain
2
Case: 12-15474 Date Filed: 06/04/2013 Page: 3 of 4
minimal due process requirements” including “the right to confront and cross-
examine adverse witnesses.” Id.; see also Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.1(b)(2)(C) (noting that
before supervised release is revoked, “[t]he person is entitled to . . . an opportunity
to . . . question any adverse witness unless the court determines that the interest of
justice does not require the witness to appear”).
“Thus, in deciding whether or not to admit hearsay testimony, the court must
balance the defendant’s right to confront adverse witnesses against the grounds
asserted by the government for denying confrontation.” Frazier, 26 F.3d at 114.
When a court admits hearsay evidence without engaging in this balancing test, the
court violates the defendant’s due process rights. Id. But, the error is harmless if
the properly considered evidence -- by itself -- is sufficient to support the district
court’s conclusion that the defendant violated the terms of his supervised release.
Id.
At the revocation hearing, the district court -- over Whetstone’s hearsay
objection -- permitted a police officer to testify about what witnesses said about
Whetstone’s possible connection to the counterfeit drugs discovered in a hotel
room. The government proffered no basis for failing to call the absent witnesses to
testify, and the district court did not balance expressly the government’s failure to
produce absent witnesses against Whetstone’s right to confrontation. We will
suppose that the district court violated Whetstone’s due process rights.
3
Case: 12-15474 Date Filed: 06/04/2013 Page: 4 of 4
Even if the district court erred in this respect, the error was harmless,
however, because the non-hearsay evidence was sufficient for the district court to
conclude that Whetstone possessed the counterfeit drugs. See id.; United States v.
Robinson, 893 F.2d 1244, 1245 (11th Cir. 1990) (explaining that the evidence need
only reasonably satisfy the district court that the defendant violated the conditions
of his supervised release; proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not required).
For example, the hotel room where the counterfeit drugs were located was
rented under a false name which matched the name on a driver’s license in
Whetstone’s possession. Whetstone also told the officer that the drugs were
counterfeit and admitted that he was in the business of selling counterfeit drugs. In
the light of this evidence, the district court abused no discretion in concluding that
Whetstone possessed the counterfeit drugs and, thus, violated the terms of
supervised release. See United States v. Woodard, 531 F.3d 1352, 1360 (11th Cir.
2008) (explaining that a defendant’s constructive possession of a substance may be
demonstrated by showing that defendant’s ownership or dominion and control over
the drugs).
Because the district court considered properly Whetstone’s possession of
counterfeit drugs in calculating the guidelines range, Whetstone’s sentence is
procedurally reasonable.
AFFIRMED.
4