### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 60830 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
YARTNEY GREER , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:13

- CR

- 39

- 1

Before KING, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Yartney Greer ple a d ed guilty in 2014 to possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) . He was sentenced to 46 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release ; he also was ordered to

pay a $1,500 fin e

. On September 2, 2016 , Greer began serving his term of supervised release

. Prior to the ex piration of his supervised release, Greer was charged with violating the terms by : (1) being arrested and charged i n

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 17, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-60830 Document: 00515455007 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/17/2020No. 19

- 60830

2 November 2017 with possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, possession of marijuana, and two motor vehicle offenses; (2) providing a urine sample positive for marijuana use i n March 2018; and (3) failing to pay the court

ordered fine

. I n October 2019, h is supervised release was revoked, and he was sentenced to 14 months of imprisonment and 22 months of supervised release. Now, he ch allenges the revocation of his supervised release , arguing that the district court erred when it admitted the hearsay statement of a witness, Devon Gatson, who did not testify at the revocation hearing, without making a judicial finding of good cause to de ny Greer’ s interest in confrontation and

cross
- examination of Gatson. He contends that he had a substantial interest in confronting Gatson’s alleged statement that Greer knew that a gun was in the van and had moved it

. A preserved Confrontation Clause obj ection is reviewed de novo, subject to harmless error analysis. United States v. McCormick , 54 F.3d 214, 219 (5th Cir. 1995)

. At a revocation hearing, a defendant has the due

- process right “to refute and challenge adverse evidence to assure that the cour t’s relevant findings are based on verified facts.” U nited States v. Grandlund , 71 F.3d 507,
509

- 10 (5th Cir. 1995); see Morrissey v. Brewer , 408 U.S. 471, 488

- 89 (1972) (holding that “the minimum requirements of due process” in a parole revocation procee ding include “the right to confront and cross

- examine adverse witnesses”). “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 pretermi tting the confrontation.’” United States v. Jimison , 825 F.3d 260, 263 (5th Cir. 2016) (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Minnitt , 617 F.3d 327, 333 (5th Cir. 2010)). “[A] district court is required to make ‘ an explicit, specific finding of good cause ’ for Case: 19-60830 Document: 00515455007 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/17/2020No. 19

- 60830

3 not allowing confrontation of a particular witness. ” Jimison , 825 F.3d at 263 (citation omitted). While a failure to make a good cause finding “may require reversal in most instances, . . . [such a failure] may be found to be harmless error where good cause exists, its basis is found in the record, and its finding is implicit in the court’s rulings.” Grandlund , 71 F.3d at 510 (footnote omitted).
Th e record shows that the district court made no attempt to weigh Greer’s interest in cross

- examining Gatson against the G overnment’s interest in preventing Gatson’s cross

- examination. Jimison , 825 F.3d at 264. H owever, as the Government notes, the district court stated that it would have made the same finding that Greer possessed the firearm without Gatson’s alleged
statement

. The Government argues that any error is har mless because the district court specifically stated that its decision to find a supervised release violation based on Greer’s possession of a firearm could be based on other facts, including Greer’s own statement , without regard to Gatson’s hearsay
statem ent. Although the district court initially cited Gatson’s statement in its ruling, the district court later stated that it would make the same ruling without reliance on Gatson’s statement, based on Greer’s statement to Officer Ward that he attempted to co nceal the gun. Greer does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting revocation without reliance on Gatson’s statement, specifically stating that the issue is not one of sufficiency of the evidence. We determine that it was harmless error f or the district court to admit the hearsay statements without a finding of good cause where properly admitted evidence supported the district court’s ruling

. See Minnitt , 617 F.3d
at 335

- 36

. AFFIRMED. Case: 19-60830 Document: 00515455007 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/17/2020