FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT AUG 22, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 15709 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 9 8 - 1 4 0 0 3 - CR - KLR U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f
- A p p e lle e , v ersu s C H R I S T O P H E R R . B R O W N , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 22, 2008) B efo re C A RN E S , B A R K E T T an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: C h r is to p h e rR . B r o w n ap p e a ls h is s e n te n c e o f 2 4 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t,Dilks named and identified the CI , but we do not re fer to him by

name. 1 2 i m pos e d a f

t e rthe di s tr i c tc our tr e voke d hi s s upe r vi s e d r e l e a s e , pur s ua ntt o 18 U . S. C. § 3 5 8 3 ( e ) ( 3 ) . A f t e rr e v i e w , w e a f

f i r m. I . B AC KG RO UN D In 19 98 , B row n w as conv i ct ed of po ss es si on w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e c ra ck coca i ne and served a 11 0-m on th p ri son sent ence . T he t erm s of hi s s up ervi se d
r e l e a s e m a nda t e d tha tB r ow n “ notc om m i ta ny f e de r a l , s t a t e orl oc a l c r i m e s ” a nd im p o s e d a s p e c ia l c o n d itio n th a t h e m a in ta in “f u ll- tim e , le g itim a te e m p lo y m e n t” a n d n o t b e u n e m p lo y e d f o rm o r e th a n th ir ty d a y s w ith o u t p e rm is s io n . F ol l ow i ng hi s r el ea se on Ja nu ary 27, 20 07 , B row n’ s probat i on offi ce r p e t i t i o n e d f

o rr e v o c a t i o n o f

h i s s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e , a l l e g i n g , i n t e ra l i a , th a tB r o wn had fai l ed t o m ai nt ai n ful l -t i m e e m pl oym entand rem ai ned u nem pl oyed for m ore tha n thi r ty da y s . A s upe r s e di ng pe t i t i on a l l e ge d tha tB r ow n a l s o vi ol a t e d F l or i da l aw by po ss es si ng and sel l i ng coca i ne. A ta n e vi de nt i a r y he a r i ng, the gove r nm e ntpr e s e nt e d t e s t i m ony of D e t e c t i ve M i chae l D i l ks w i th t he S heri ff’ s O ff i ce i n Ind i an R i ver C ou nt y. D i l ks t es t i fi ed tha t , dur i ng a na r c ot i c s i nve s t i ga t i on, a c onf i de nt i a l i nf

or m a nt( “ C I ” ) a r r a nge d a cont rol l ed bu y w i th a drug deal ernam ed “ M oo k. ” D i l ks show ed the C I a 1 phot ogr aph of

de f e nda ntB r ow n, a nd the C I i de nt i f i e d hi m a s “ M ook. ” D i l ksDilks also te stified that a surveillance team followed the blue car , conducte d a tra ffic stop 2 and positively

identified B rown a s the driver . However, the mag istrate judg e found this portion of Di lks ’s te stimony

toovagueand

un c or robo rate d tobere lia

bleand did no t re ly on it. 3 s ur r e pt i t i ous l y w a t c he d a s a bl ue f our - doorc a rdr i ve n by a bl a c k m a l e a r r i ve d a nd th e CI w a l k e d t o th e v e h i c l e a n d c o n d u c t e d a h a n d
- t o - h a n d e x c h a n g e . Th e CI r e tur ne d t o D i l ks w i th c r a c k c oc a i ne . T he gove r nm e nta l s o pr e s e nt e d t e s t i m ony 2 f r o m B r o w n ’s p r o b a tio n o f f ic e rth a t B r o w n h a d b e e n u n e m p lo y e d f o rth e m a jo r ity of hi s s up ervi se d rel ea se . T h e m ag istrate ju d g e iss u ed a r ep o rt (“R & R ”) re co m m en d in g th at B ro w n ’s su p erv i sed rel ease b e rev o k ed b ecau se th e g o v ern m en th ad sh o w n b y a p rep o n d eran ce o f th e ev i d en ce th atB ro w n w as u n em p l o yed fo r o v er th i rty d ays a nd ha d s ol d c oc a i ne . T he R & R c onc l ude d tha tD i l ks ’ s he a r s a y t e s t i m ony a bout the C I’ s i dent i fi ca t i on of B row n as the “ M oo k” w ho sol d h i m the cocai ne w as r e l i a bl e , not i ng tha tthe r e w a s i nde pe nde ntc or r obor a t i on. T he R & R i de nt i f i e d the f ol l ow i ng e vi de nc e e s t a bl i s hi ng B r ow n a s “ M ook” : ( 1) the C I i de nt i f i e d hi s drug source as “ M oo k, ” ( 2) D i l ks t es t i fi ed thatB row n w as kn ow n i n t he ar eaas

“ M o o k , ” ( 3 ) Br o w n ’ s PSI r e f e r e n c e d “ M o o k ” a s Br o w n ’ s s tr e e tn a me , ( 4 ) th e CI i de nt i f i e d B r ow n f

r om a phot ogr aph, a nd ( 5) D i l ks pe r s ona l l y w i tne s s e d the phone c a l l a nd the c ontr ol l e d buy . T he R & R a l s o not e d tha tvi de o s ur ve i l l a nc e s how e d a bl ue c a r , a nd B r ow n w a s know n t o dr i ve a bl ue f our - doorc a r . T he R & R not e d theWe reviewa district cour t’s revoc ation of super

vised rele ase f

or abuseof discretion. United 3 State s v . Frazie r, 26 F .3 d 110 , 112 (1 1th Cir . 199 4) . Th e dis tric t cou rt ’s finding s of f

a c t madeat a revo c atio n h e aringarereviewe d f or c le ar error . Uni te d St ate s v . A lma nd , 9 92 F .3 d 3 16 , 3 18 (1 1th Cir. 1993). 4 C I ’ s c r i m i na l hi s t or y , butc onc l ude d tha tthe s e pa s tc onvi c t i ons di d notoutw e i gh the r e l i a bi l i ty of

the C I ’ s i de nt i f

i c a t i on. T he R & R a l s o f ound tha tthe gove r nm e nt had sho w n t hatB row n fai l ed t o m ai nt ai n em pl oym entand w as un em pl oyed for a t l eastth i rty d ays. B r ow n f i l e d a n obj e c t i on t o the R & R , a r gui ng tha tD i l ks ’ s he a r s a y t e s t i m ony thatthe C I had i dent i fi ed the drug deal er“ M oo k” as defe nd antB row n w as unr e l i a bl e . O ve rB r ow n’ s obj e c t i on, the di s tr i c tc our ta dopt e d the R & R a nd f ound thatB row n h ad vi ol at ed hi s s up ervi se d rel ea se t erm s. T he di stri ctcourtse nt ence d B r o w n to 2 4 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. B r ow n t i m e l y appe a l e d. I I . DI S CUS S I ON A di s tr i c tc our tm a y “ r e voke a t e r m of s upe r vi s e d r e l e a s e , a nd r e qui r e the defe nd antt o serve i n p ri son al l or partof the t erm of supervi se d rel ea se autho ri ze d by s t a tut e . . . i f

the c our t. . . f

i nds by a pr e ponde r a nc e of the e vi de nc e tha tthe d e f e n d a n t v io la te d a c o n d itio n o f [ h is ] s u p e r v is e d r e le a s e .” 1 8 U .S .C . § 3583( e ) ( 3) . A l though the F e de r a l R ul e s of E vi de nc e do notappl y i n r e voc a t i on of 3
s upe r vi s e d r e l e a s e pr oc e e di ngs , de f e nda nt s “ a r e e nt i t l e d t o c e r t a i n m i ni m a l dueWe de c lin eto addre ss B ro wn ’s a ltern ativ earguments , raise d o n a pp e a l f or thefirs t ti mein 4 his reply brie f a nd nev er rai sed in thedis tric t c ourt , th at th edis tric t c ourt (1 ) erre d b y

failingto inquire as to why

the CIwas una

ble to testify , and (2) violated his Six th Amendment conf rontation rights under Crawf

ord v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354 (2004), by admitting the CI ’s out-of-c ourt identificati o n . S ee United States v. Britt, 437 F.3d 1103, 1104 (11th Cir. 2006) (dec lining to address issues not raised in the initial brief ). 5 proces s r equi re m ent s, ” a nd “ the adm i ss i bi l i ty of hea rs ay i s notaut om at i c. ” F r a z i e r , 26 F . 3d a t114. I n de c i di ng w he the rt o a dm i the a r s a y t e s t i m ony , the d is tr ic t c o u r t m u s t ( 1 ) c o n d u c t a b a la n c in g te s t b e tw e e n “th e d e f e n d a n t’s r ig h t to c onf r onta dve r s e w i tne s s e s ” a nd “ the gr ounds a s s e r t e d by the gove r nm e ntf or d e n y in g c o n f

r o n ta tio n ,” a n d ( 2 ) d e te r m in e w h e th e rth e h e a r s a y s ta te m e n t is
r e l i a bl e . I d. O n ap p ea l, B ro w n ar g u es th at D il k s’s h ea rs ay testim o n y a s to th e C I’s i dent i fi ca t i on of B row n w as un re l i abl e. B row n em ph as i ze s the C I’ s pri or cr i m i nal 4 hi st ory a nd the fa ctthatD i l ks’ s t es t i m on y c hang ed re gardi ng w hether he s ho w ed th e C I B r o w n ’s d r iv e r ’s lic e n s e p h o to g r ap h o rs o m e o th e rp h o to g r ap h . H ow e ve r , the C I ’ s i de nt i f i c a t i on of

B r ow n w a s s uppor t e d by i nde pe nde nt corr ob orat i ng evi dence. D i l ks w i tness ed the C I pl ac e aph on e c al l t o a drug deal er na m e d “ M ook” a nd a r r a nge a drug de a l a nd the n w i tne s s e d the C I c onduc ta ha ndto - h a n d e x c h a n g e f

o rc r a c k c o c a in e w ith a b la c km a le d r iv in g a b lu e , f o u r - d o o rc a r . B ro w n ’s P S I e stab li sh ed th at B ro w n h ad u se d th e a li as “M o o k .” B ro w n ’s prob at i on offi ce r t es t i fi ed thatB row n som et i m es drov e abl ue, four-doo r c ar6

m a tc h in g th e d e s c r ip tio n o f th e c a rD ilk s s a w d u r in g th e c o n tr o lle d b u y . G iv e n th is c o r r o b o r a tin g e v id e n c e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t a b u s e its di sc re t i on i n con cl ud i ng thatD i l ks’ s hea rs ay t es t i m on y i dent i fy i ng B row n w as re l i abl e a nd fi nd i ng thatB row n v i ol at ed hi s s up ervi se d rel ea se by se l l i ng cr ac k coca i ne. AF F I RME D.