Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-03404/USCOURTS-ca8-07-03404-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Larry Dean Fry
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-3404

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Larry Dean Fry, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 22, 2008

Filed: April 25, 2008

___________

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Larry Dean Fry (Fry) appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed after

revoking his supervised release. On appeal, Fry argues the revocation-hearing

evidence was insufficient to support the district court’s finding that Fry had committed

an assault. After carefully reviewing the record, we affirm.

We conclude the district court did not clearly err in finding by a preponderance

of the evidence that Fry had violated the conditions of his supervised release. See

Appellate Case: 07-3404 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/25/2008 Entry ID: 3427261
-2-

United States v. Carothers, 337 F.3d 1017, 1019 (8th Cir. 2003) (stating the

government’s burden of proof and the clear-error review standard). Although the

district court did not engage in the balancing required by this court’s precedent before

admitting hearsay evidence of the alleged assault at the revocation hearing, see United

States v. Reynolds, 49 F.3d 423, 426 (8th Cir. 1995) (explaining, before admitting

hearsay evidence at revocation hearing, the court must balance defendant’s

constitutional right to confront a witness against the government’s explanation for

why confrontation is undesirable or impractical), the evidence appears to be

admissible under that test, see United States v. Martin, 371 F.3d 446, 448 (8th Cir.

2004) (concluding the hearsay evidence offered by the government is admissible if the

evidence is sufficiently reliable and the government has a reasonably satisfactory

explanation for not producing the witness). Even if the evidence were not properly

admitted, we conclude any error was harmless, given the evidence of other supervised

release violations. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a) (“Any error, defect, irregularity, or

variance that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded.”). 

We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-3404 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/25/2008 Entry ID: 3427261