United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-60633

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Dvonte Amir King, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:18-CR-239-1 

______________________________

Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Dvonte Amir King has appealed the district court’s judgment 

revoking his supervised release. After an evidentiary hearing, the district 

court found that King had violated conditions of his supervised release by 

committing law violations—domestic violence/creating fear and being a 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 12, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-60633 Document: 00516782209 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/12/2023
No. 22-60633

2

felon in possession of a firearm—and by failing to pay the special assessment 

and fine imposed in the court’s original judgment. 

“Defendants in supervised release revocation proceedings have a 

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

261 (5th Cir. 2016); see also Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 (1972). 

King contends that the district court erred by denying his right to confront 

witnesses with respect to their out-of-court statements. 

Ordinarily, this court’s review of this question is de novo, subject to 

harmless error analysis. See Jimison, 825 F.3d at 262. To the extent that 

King failed to preserve error, our review is for plain error. See HolguinHernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762, 764 (2020). Under the plain error 

standard, King must show that the district court committed a clear and 

obvious error that affected his substantial rights, that is, that it affected the 

outcome of the proceedings. See United States v. McDowell, 973 F.3d 362, 

365-66 (5th Cir. 2020). If such a showing is made, we have the discretion to 

reverse such errors if they seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public 

reputation of judicial proceedings. See id. 

Three categories of evidence are at issue: (1) out-of-court statements 

made during 911 emergency calls; (2) out-of-court statements made by the 

domestic-violence victim to police officers during their investigation; and 

(3) out-of-court statements of the victim’s children that were recorded in a 

police officer’s incident report. 

“[T]here is no due process right to cross-examine nontestimonial 

declarants in revocation proceedings.” McDowell, 973 F.3d at 366. 

Ordinarily, “[s]tatements made in response to an ongoing emergency on a 

911 call are not testimonial.” Id. “Therefore, they do not trigger the 

requirements of the Confrontation Clause, let alone due process.” Id. at 367.

Case: 22-60633 Document: 00516782209 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/12/2023
No. 22-60633

3

In this case, because the domestic-violence victim appeared as a 

witness at the revocation hearing and was subject to cross examination, the 

admission of her out-of-court statements did not violate King’s right to due 

process. See Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 488-89.

The district court determined that the safety and well-being of the 

children provided good cause for pretermitting confrontation. See Jimison, 

825 F.3d at 263; see also United States v. Alvear, 959 F.3d 185, 190 (5th Cir. 

2020). Any error in admitting the out-of-court statements of the children 

was harmless because there was ample other evidence supporting the district 

court’s finding that King had violated a condition of his supervised release by 

committing the law violations. See Jimison, 825 F.3d at 262.

King contends that the district court erred in finding that he violated 

conditions of his supervised release by failing to pay the special assessment 

and fine imposed in the original criminal judgment. King asserts that his 

failure to pay was not willful. See Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660, 672-73

(1983); see also United States v. Payan, 992 F.2d 1387, 1396 (5th Cir. 1993). 

We do not reach this contention because any such error was harmless in light 

of the district court’s finding that King violated conditions of his supervised 

release by committing law violations. See United States v. McCormick, 54 F.3d 

214, 219 n.3 (5th Cir. 1995). The judgment is AFFIRMED.

Case: 22-60633 Document: 00516782209 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/12/2023