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 pleaded 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 fine. On September 2, 2016, Greer began serving his term of 

supervised release. Prior to the expiration of his supervised release, Greer was 

charged with violating the terms by: (1) being arrested and charged in 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. 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: 06/17/2020
No. 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 in March 2018; and (3) failing to pay the courtordered fine. In October 2019, his supervised release was revoked, and he was 

sentenced to 14 months of imprisonment and 22 months of supervised release.

Now, he challenges 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 deny 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 objection 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 court’s relevant 

findings are based on verified facts.” United 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 proceeding 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 pretermitting 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: 06/17/2020
No. 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).

The record shows that the district court made no attempt to weigh 

Greer’s interest in cross-examining Gatson against the Government’s interest 

in preventing Gatson’s cross-examination. Jimison, 825 F.3d at 264. However,

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 harmless 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 

statement.

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 conceal 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 for 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