FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ULY 10, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 15 43 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- tp -2 00 79 -KMM -1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us TOMAS RODRIGUEZ, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll D efen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ju ly 10, 2 01 2) Befo re EDMONDSON, BARKETT andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Tom as Ro dr ig ue z ap pe al s t he rev oc at io n o f hi s s up erv is edrel eas e p ur su an t

to 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 3( e). The di st ric t co urt fo un d t ha t Ro dr ig ue z v io la te d t he co nd it io ns of h is supe rv is edrel eas e b y (1) co m m it ti ng id en ti ty the ft i n v io la ti on of 18 U.S.C. § 1 02 8; (2) fai li ng to no ti fy th e p ro ba ti on off

ic e o f a ch an ge in em pl oym en t wh ic h i nv ol ve d o bt ai ni ng a se co ndjob at 1 -8 00 -WeAnswe r; a nd(3) as so ci at in g wi th Riyadh Nagi , a co nv ic te d fe lo n. A di st ric t co urt m ay rev ok e a 1 te rm of s up erv is edrel eas e if

th e co urt “ fin ds by a prep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce th atth e d efen dantvi ol at eda co nd it io n o f supe rv is edrel eas e.” 1 8 U.S.C. § 3 58 3( e)(3 ). W e rev ie w forab us e o f di sc ret io n adi st ric t co urt’s jud gm en t re vo ki ng a de fen da nt ’s supe rv is edrel eas e. Uni te d Sta tes v. Vel as qu ezVela sq ue z , 52 4 F .3d 12 48 , 12 52 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s fi nd in gs of f actforcle ar erro r. Uni te d Sta tes v. Alman d , 99 2 F .2d31 6, 3 18 (11 th Cir . 19 93 ). Ro dr ig ue z fi rs t ar gu es th atth is rep orti ng requi rem en t was am bi gu ou s an d d idno t cl earl y ap pl y to “ ad di ti on al em

pl oym en t.” We di sa gr ee. Ro dr ig ue z was on no ti ce th at , as aco nd it io n o f supe rv is edrel eas e, he ha d t o re po rt “ an y ch an ge in Conditi ons of supervise d rele ase inc luded the following : (1) “T he def endant sha ll not 1 commit another fe dera l, state or loca l crime” ; (2) “the defe ndant shall notify the probation officer at least ten da

y s prior to any

chang e in re sidence or employ ment”; and ( 3) “the defe ndant shall not associate w ith any

persons e ng ag ed in criminal activity and shall not associate with any person c onvicted of a

felony , unless grante d permission to do so by the probation officer .” (

Id . at 4). 2res id en ce o r em pl oym en t.” A p la in read in g o f th is supe rv is edrel eas e co nd it io n su gg es ts th at“ an y

ch an ge ” is bro aden ou gh to ap pl y to th e ci rcu m st an ces in th is cas e, whe re a d efen da ntob ta in s emplo ym en t ad di ti on al to an y pre vi ou sl y

rep orte d em pl oym en t. Ro dr ig ue z al so arg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredin co ns id eri ng he ars ay ev id en ce as a ba si s fo r fi nd in g t ha t h e en ga ge d i n i de nt ity th eft . At th e rev oc at io n he ari ng , itwas a ll eg edth atRo dr ig ue z u se d h is ne w pl ace o f em pl oym en t, 1- 80 0- W eAn swe r, to ob ta in th e p ers on al in fo rm at io n o f aneld erl y ge nt le m an , Bern ardGreenbe rg . It was furth er al le ge d t ha t Ro dr ig ue z an d Nag i o pe ne d aQVC Sh op pi ng Netwo rk(“ QVC”) ac co un t u si ng Greenbe rg ’s nam e an d s oc ia l s ecurit y nu m be r, an d m ad e p ur ch as es un de r th is acco un t. The go ve rn m en t i ntro du ceddo cu m en ta ti on in di cat in g t ha t Gre enbe rg ’s m ed ic al in fo rm at io n, wh ic h i nc lu de d Gre enbe rg ’s nam e, ad dr es s, p ho ne nu m be r, da te of b irt h, an d s oc ia l s ecurit y nu m be r, was a cces se d b y

Ro dr ig ue z o n M arch 31 , 20 10 . Nagi pro vi de d awrit te n s ta te m en t t o l aw en fo rcem en t, i n wh ic h h e wro te th atRo dr ig ue z h adin fo rm edNagi he was i n t he m ed ic al bi ll in g fi el d a ndha d acce ss to pe rs on al in fo rm at io n, t ha t Ro dr ig ue z p ro vi de d t ha t i nf orm at io n, an d t ha t

3Nag i an d R od rig ue z fi ll edou t an ap pl ic at io n fo r a QVC car d. The d efen se 2 ob jecte d t o t he in tro du ct io n o f th is st at em en t o n h ears ay gro un ds , andbe cau se it was no t “ swo rn ,” bu t the m ag is tra te jud ge ov erru le d t he ob jecti on . Fi na ll y , Mic ha el Kenn edy , a de te ct iv e wit h t he Bro wardCo un ty Sheri ff's Offi ce, t es ti fie d a t the he ari ng th athe ha d c on du ct edsu rv ei ll an ce o n Nag i ata Dun ki n’ Don ut s o n J un e 2 8, 2 01 0, an d t ha t Ro dr ig ue z was pre se ntwith Nag i at th e Dun ki n’ Don ut s. Du rin g asea rch of Na gi ’s garba ge on Ju ne 24 , 20 10 , Ken ne dy fou ndsev eral QVC pa ck in g s li ps Greenbe rg ’s nam e. Kenn edy co nt act ed Greenbe rg who to ldKenn edy th athe ha d n otord eredan y it em s fr om

QVC. Greenbe rg lat er re cei ve d abi ll fro m QVC, whi ch was s en t t o h is res id en ce. The m ag is tra te jud ge fou ndby a prep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce tha t Ro dr ig ue z h adco m

m it te d i de nt it y

th eft , invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 1 02 8( a)(7 ), ba se d o n t he fol lo win g c irc um st an ti al ev id en ce: (1) Ro dr ig ue z acc es se d Greenbe rg ’s in fo rm at io n; (2) a QVC acco un t was op en edinGreenbe rg ’s nam e; (3 ) so m eo ne m ad e u naut ho riz edpu rch as es on th e QVC car d; (4) QVC pa ck ag in g m at eri al s i n Gre enbe rg ’s nam e were f ou ndin Nagi ’s tra sh du rin g a“ tra sh pu ll ”; an d (5 ) Ro dr ig ue z an d Nag i wer e se enfou r da y s af te r th e tr as h p ul l ata Dun ki n’ Nag i later pled nolo c ontender e to the identity theft cha rg e in his own supervised r elea se 2 revoc ation proce eding s. 4Don ut s o n Nag i’s l ap to p c om pu te r. Alt ho ug h t he Fed eral Ru le s o f Evi de nc e d o n otap pl y inth e co nt ex t o f a supe rv is edrel eas e rev oc at io n h eari ng , hea rs ay st at em en ts m

us t b e rel iabl e. In de ci di ng whet he r to adm ithe ars ay tes ti m on y

of an abs en t wi tn es s, the di st ric t co urt m us t (1 ) m ak e fi nd in gs th atth e h ears ay was re li ab le ; an d (2 ) “ba la nc e th e de fen da nt ’s rig htto co nf

ro ntadve rs e wit ne ss es ag ai ns t the gro un ds ass ert edby the go ve rn m en t fo r de nyin g c on fro nt at io n.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Fr az ie r , 26 F.3d11 0, 11 4 (1 1th C ir. 1 99 4) . Rod rig ue z arg ue s t ha t the m ag is tra te erre d b y rel y in g o n Nag i’s h ears ay

st at em en ts in fin di ng th atRo dr ig ue z co m m it te d i de nt ity

th eft be cau se th es e st at em en ts were h ears ay an d R od rig ue z was no t g iv enan op po rtu ni ty to co nf

ro ntNagi an d c ro ss -ex am in e h im . Ind eed , itwas e rro r fo r th e m ag is tra te to fai l t o m ak e fi nd in gs as t o the rel iabi li ty of th e ad m it te d h ears ay or t o co nduc t the Fra zi er ba la nc in g t es t. Ho wev er, s uc h e rro r was harm le ss be cau se ot he r, pr op erl y

co ns id eredcir cu m st an ti al ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt t he co urt’s co nc lu si on th atRo dr ig ue z co m m it te d t he cri m e o f id en ti ty the ft wh il e o n supe rv is edrel eas e b y

a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce. Fu rth er, we h ol d t ha t the co urt p ro pe rly fou ndth atRo dr ig ue z was requi red , andfai le d, t o re po rt h is ad di ti on al em

pl oym en t, an d tha t h e was ass oc ia ti ng with aco nv ic te d fe lo n i n vi ol at io n o f hi s s up erv is edrel eas e. Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e 5it s d is cret io n b y rev ok in g R od rig ue z’s supe rv is edrel eas e. AFFIRMED.

6