Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-10657/USCOURTS-ca5-14-10657-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Chi Giang Ho
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-10657

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CHI GIANG HO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:14-CR-50-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Chi Giang Ho, federal prisoner # 82698-179, challenges his 18-month 

sentence for the revocation of his supervised release. Ho argues that the 

district court erred by admitting the video identification made by the victim. 

He argues that the admission of this evidence violated his due process right to 

confront the witnesses against him as stated in Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 

471, 480 (1972). A supervisee has a due process right to “a fair and meaningful 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 25, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-10657 Document: 00512981852 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/25/2015
No. 14-10657

opportunity to refute and challenge adverse evidence to assure that the court’s 

relevant findings are based on verified facts.” United States v. Grandlund, 

71 F.3d 507, 509-10 (5th Cir. 1995), opinion clarified, 77 F.3d 811 (5th Cir. 

1996). This right allows confrontation of witnesses pertaining to the revocation 

decision and does not extend to those witnesses pertaining to the revocation 

sentence. Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 484; United States v. Beydoun, 469 F.3d 102, 

108 (5th Cir. 2006). 

Ho asserts that this evidence was the only evidence to support a finding 

that he committed a Grade A violation of his release and that the evidence 

tainted both the decision to revoke and his sentence. Ho does not dispute that 

he admitted all of the revocation allegations except the assault. Because Ho 

admittedly possessed cocaine while under supervision, the district court had 

ample basis to conclude that he committed a Grade B violation. See United 

States v. Bishop, 228 F. App’x 464, 465 (5th Cir. 2007) (finding that possession 

of any amount of cocaine was punishable as a felony under Texas law and 

therefore constituted a Grade B violation). “Upon a finding of a Grade A or B 

violation, the court shall revoke probation or supervised release.” U.S.S.G. 

§ 7B1.3(a)(1). As the admitted Grade B violation required that Ho’s release be 

revoked, his assertion that the evidence related to his Grade A violation 

affected the decision to revoke is spurious. Ho’s remaining argument is that 

the challenged evidence tainted his sentence. As this argument pertains to his 

sentence only, the confrontation arguments he makes based on Morrissey do 

not apply. 

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 14-10657 Document: 00512981852 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/25/2015