FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 03 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-30124
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00356-RSM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
DAVID DEMARIUS ROUTE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ricardo S. Martinez, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2016**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
David Demarius Route appeals the district court’s revocation of supervised
release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Route contends that the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 32.1 and his due process right to confront witnesses at his revocation
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
hearing by admitting hearsay testimony. We review de novo. See United States v.
Perez, 526 F.3d 543, 547 (9th Cir. 2008). Assuming that the out-of-court
statements at issue constitute hearsay, any error in the admission of those
statements was harmless because the district court did not rely on the statements in
revoking Route’s supervised release. See id.
Route also contends that there was insufficient evidence to find that he
violated the terms of his supervised release by knowingly violating a no contact
order. When a sufficiency challenge is raised, “we ask whether, viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the government, any rational trier of fact
could have found the essential elements of a violation by a preponderance of the
evidence.” United States v. King, 608 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
government, the district court did not err in determining that Route knowingly
violated the no contact order in violation of Washington law by engaging in a
verbal altercation with the protected person and by being within 1,000 feet of the
protected person’s residence. See State v. Sisemore, 55 P.3d 1178, 1180 (Wash.
Ct. App. 2002).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-30124