United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-11059

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Lamon Demetrus Wright, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:20-CR-25-1

Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Lamon Demetrus Wright appeals the revocation of his supervised 

release. He argues that the district court erred by admitting his girlfriend’s

out-of-court statements alleging that he assaulted her. Wright also appeals 

the 60-month sentence that the district court imposed upon revocation. He 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 8, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-11059 Document: 00516537371 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/08/2022
No. 21-11059

2

argues that the sentence is plainly unreasonable because the district court 

erroneously believed that a mistake in the original criminal judgment barred

it from imposing a lower sentence. We AFFIRM.

First at issue are Wright’s girlfriend’s out-of-court statements 

alleging that he assaulted her. The district court admitted these statements 

at the revocation hearing via a recording of the 9-1-1 call that Wright’s 

girlfriend placed and via the responding officer’s body-camera footage.

Wright’s girlfriend did not testify at the revocation hearing, and Wright was 

therefore unable to confront her.

A defendant “in supervised release revocation proceedings ha[s] a 

qualified right to confront witnesses.” United States v. Jimison, 825 F.3d 260, 

261 (5th Cir. 2016). However, as relevant here, we “look to whether the 

Government has shown good cause to overcome the defendant’s right to 

confront the hearsay declarant[] arrayed against him.” United States v. 

Alvear, 959 F.3d 185, 189 (5th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks and 

citations omitted). “Determining whether good cause exists requires 

weigh[ing] the defendant’s interest in confrontation of a particular witness 

against the Government’s proffered reasons for pretermitting the 

confrontation.” Jimison, 825 F.3d at 263 (internal quotation marks and 

citations omitted). Our review is de novo. Id. at 262.

Wright’s “interest in finding a means to undermine the putative 

victim’s . . . statements is certainly a strong one,” especially insofar as her 

statements “formed the core of the case offered in court to prove the Grade 

A violation[]” of assaulting her. Alvear, 959 F.3d at 189 (internal quotation 

marks and citations omitted). However, Wright’s failure to “propose an 

alternative theory of events” tempers that interest. Id. On the other side of 

the balance, we “look to the Government’s proffered reason for the hearsay 

declarant’s absence from the hearing or reasons that could be inferred from 

Case: 21-11059 Document: 00516537371 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/08/2022
No. 21-11059

3

the record.” Id. at 190. The Government argued that the witness was absent 

because she refused to cooperate, and it can “be inferred from the record”

that the reason for her refusal was fear of Wright. Id. The balance here 

therefore favors the Government. See, e.g., id.; United States v. Reza, 759 F. 

App’x 269, 270–72 (5th Cir. 2019) (finding good cause under similar facts); 

United States v. Elizondo, 502 F. App’x 369, 370–73 (5th Cir. 2012) (same).

Likewise, as in Alvear, Wright’s girlfriend’s out-of-court statements 

have sufficient indicia of reliability. See 959 F.3d at 191. The physical 

evidence of injury and the impression of fear that she conveyed when 

speaking about the assault corroborate her statements to the dispatcher and 

the responding officer. She also gave a sworn written statement that Wright 

“chok[ed]” her “for maybe a minute.” And the record does not indicate any 

ulterior motive she may have had to lie about what happened. In short, while 

Wright had a strong interest in cross-examination, the Government showed 

good cause for overcoming that interest, and the out-of-court statements the 

Government relies on have sufficient indicia of reliability. See Alvear, 959 

F.3d at 189–91.

Next (and last) at issue is Wright’s argument that the district court 

erroneously believed that a mistake in the underlying criminal judgment 

against Wright prevented it from exercising discretion to impose a revocation 

sentence of fewer than 60 months.

We “review a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release 

under the plainly unreasonable standard of review,” first ensuring that “the 

district court committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to 

consider the [18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)] factors, selecting a sentence based on 

clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence, 

including failing to explain a deviation from the Guidelines range,” and, 

second, considering “the substantive reasonableness of the sentence 

Case: 21-11059 Document: 00516537371 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/08/2022
No. 21-11059

4

imposed under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v. Winding, 

817 F.3d 910, 913 (5th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citations 

omitted). The district court in a revocation proceeding is effectively bound 

by the underlying judgment, regardless of its validity, and a defendant thus 

may not use a revocation appeal to challenge the underlying criminal 

conviction and sentence. See United States v. Willis, 563 F.3d 168, 170 (5th 

Cir. 2009). However, the district court has discretion to consider the error in 

the original judgment when imposing the revocation sentence. See United 

States v. Robinson, 741 F.3d 588, 599–600 (5th Cir. 2014); § 3553(a)(1).

Contrary to Wright’s interpretation of the district court’s statements, 

the most plausible reading of the record is that the district court understood 

that it could not grant Wright’s motion to dismiss and modify the original 

judgment, but that it could consider the error in that judgment when imposing

a sentence. The district court chose not to consider the error, focusing 

instead on Wright’s extensive criminal history and the nature of violations at 

issue.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 21-11059 Document: 00516537371 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/08/2022