## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-1514

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of South Dakota. Kenneth Archambeau, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: September 8, 1998 Filed: September 14, 1998

___________ Before WOLLMAN, BEAM, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. In 1993, Kenneth Archambeau pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting an assault with a dangerous weapon while carrying a firearm, in vi olation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c) and 2, and was sentenced to 60 months imprisonment and three years supervise d release. The conditions of supervised release required, among other things, tha t Archambeau (1) not commit any federal, state or local crime; (2) fo llow the instructions of his prob ation officer; (3) notify his probation officer within 72 hours of bein g arrested or questioned by a law enforcement officer; and (4) not consume alcoholi c beverage s. In November 1997, Archambeau & s probation officer petitioned fo r revocation of Archambeau & s supervised release on the ground that ArchambeauThe Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for th e District 1 of South Dakota, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Mark F. Marshall, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of South Dakota. -2- violated these conditions. The district court granted the petition and sentence d 1 Archambeau to 7 months in prison and two years supervised release. On appea l Archambea uraises two related arguments: (1) the government failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the tribal authorities who arrested Archambeau for reckless driving and disorderly conduct actually had the authority to do so in light of South Dakota v. Yankton Sioux Tribe , 118 S. Ct. 789 (1998); and (2) but for the illegal arrests the government could not have obtained the evidence necessary to revok e Archambeau & s supervised release. We reject any suggestion that the district court was preclud ed from using against Archambea uthe information flowing from his alleged illegal arrests in determinin g whether to revoke supervised release. See United States v. Montez , 952 F.2d 854 , 857-58 (5th Cir. 1992) (ho lding that exclusionary rule, absent showing of harassment, does no t apply at revocation-of-supervised-release hearings); cf. United States v

. Fredricks on , 581 F.2d 711, 713 (8th Cir. 1978) (per curiam) (exclusionary rule i s inapplicable to federal probation revocation hearings).
Mo reover, after considering the evidence as a whole, we are satisfied it wa s sufficie nt to permit the district court to find by a preponderance of the evidence tha t Archambeau violated the conditions of his supervised release. See 18 U.S.C

. § 35 83(e)(3) (court may revoke defendant & s supervised release if court finds b y prepon derance of evidence that defendant violated supervised release condition) ; United Stat es v. Noland , 960 F.2d 1384, 1390-91 (8th Cir. 1992) (district court & s factual findings are to be accepted as true unless clearly erroneous with due regar d being given to opportunity of court to judge credibility of witnesses.)-3-

Ar chambeau raises several issues pro se, including a contention that he should have been sentenced by the same judge who originally sentenced him. After carefu l consideration, we reject this argument, cf. United Sta tes v. Makes Room For Them , 49 F.3d 41 0, 415 (8th Cir. 1995) (defendant need not be sentenced by same judge wh o presided at trial of case), as well as the other pro se arguments. We also den y Archambeau & s motion for appointment of new counsel. Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.