Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): and that he relied on the informant’s statements that he purchased the drug from Banks. The informant did not appear at the May 2013 hearing, and neither the officer nor counsel for the Government knew of his whereabouts. The revocation hearing resumed in June 2013. Based on the officer’s hearing testimony, the district court revoked Banks’ supervised release and sentenced him to five months’ imprisonment and nineteen months of supervised release. On appeal, Banks argues that the district court improperly relied on evidence admitted in violation of Fed. R.Crim.P. 32.1(b)(2)(C) (providing that a releasee “is entitled to ... question any adverse witness unless the court determines that the interest of justice does not require the witness to appear”) and Dos-well, 670 F.3d at 530-31 (<HOLDING>) in revoking his supervised release. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the rule requires a district court to balance the releasees interest in confronting an adverse witness against any proffered good cause for denying confrontation prior to admitting hearsay evidence in a revocation hearing and emphasizing that reliability is a critical factor in the balancing test (B) holding that judges may consider any relevant evidence bearing some substantial indicia of reliability including reliable hearsay in a probation revocation hearing (C) holding that the district court did not err in relying on hearsay evidence where the government offered reasons why its hearsay evidence had indicia of reliability and the court considered the reliability of the evidence in deciding the weight to give the hearsay evidence (D) holding that it was reversible error for a district court to fail to applying a balancing test before admitting oral hearsay testimony recounting a third partys allegations of sexual assault by the probationer (E) recognizing that statements admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule may be inadmissible when tested against the confrontation clause  because confrontation clause analysis differs from hearsay rule analysis
Output (English): recognizing that statements admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule may be inadmissible when tested against the confrontation clause  because confrontation clause analysis differs from hearsay rule analysis