IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-30811

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

GINA M. SEAWRIGHT, also known as Kelly Heliferich, also known as 

Amamda Hollingsworth, also known as Amanda Hollingsworth, 

 Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:12-CR-121-1

Before DAVIS, JONES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The district court revoked Gina Seawright’s supervised release and 

sentenced her to a period of 24 months imprisonment. On appeal, Seawright 

argues that she was denied her right to confront adverse witnesses during the 

revocation hearing. We find no confrontation error and AFFIRM the 

revocation of supervised release and sentence, but we REMAND for a 

correction of the revocation judgment.

 

* 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

August 2, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-30811 Document: 00514099383 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/02/2017
No. 16-30811

2

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In May 2012, Gina M. Seawright pled guilty in the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana to making, uttering, and possessing 

counterfeit securities in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 513. She received a 27-month 

sentence, and began a three-year term of supervised release in June 2014. 

On March 17, 2016, the Government filed a Rule to Revoke Supervised 

Release, alleging Seawright violated the terms of her supervised release by: “1) 

failing to report to the Probation Office for an appointment on January 26, 

2016; 2) failing to notify her Probation Officer within 72 hours of any change 

in her residence or employment (her whereabouts were unknown); 3) failing to 

notify her Probation Officer within 72 hours of her being questioned by a law 

enforcement officer; 4) failing to participate in drug/alcohol treatment as 

instructed by her Probation Officer; and 5) failing to pay restitution as ordered 

by the Court . . . .” 

Several weeks later, Seawright’s probation officer submitted a 

dispositional report to the district court which contained a detailed description 

of Seawright’s alleged violations. The report stated that, in December 2015 

Seawright visited the Hammond Addictive Disorders Clinic as instructed for a 

substance-abuse evaluation, but she declined to provide a urine sample for 

drug testing and left the clinic before completing the evaluation. She was 

asked to return to provide a sample by the end of the day, but she did not do 

so. Seawright was then recommended for intensive outpatient treatment.

Seawright’s probation officer instructed her to contact the clinic and 

begin treatment. The day after Seawright was to begin treatment, her 

probation officer was unable to contact her to determine if she had attended as 

instructed. A few days later, the officer left a voice message on Seawright’s cell 

phone, but Seawright did not return the call. The next time the officer tried to 

reach Seawright, he learned that her “cell phone number was disconnected.” 

 Case: 16-30811 Document: 00514099383 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/02/2017
No. 16-30811

3

Eventually, the probation officer learned from the clinic that Seawright never 

contacted the clinic and missed all of her scheduled appointments. 

Seawright’s probation officer continued his effort to contact her. The 

officer visited Seawright’s residence, but Seawright’s mother told the officer 

that her daughter had not stayed at the house for a few weeks. The officer 

asked her to tell Seawright to report to the probation office on a specific date 

and time. The officer later confirmed that the message was given to Seawright. 

Nevertheless, she did not report as instructed and later attempts to contact 

her also failed.

In addition, the dispositional report noted that as of June 7, 2016, 

Seawright had not made a restitution payment since February 2015. She had 

a remaining restitution balance of over $59,000. 

Finally, the report noted that “[i]n connection with the above violations,” 

a Hammond Police Department detective had told Seawright’s probation 

officer of outstanding state felony arrest warrants against her in Tangipahoa 

Parish. The warrants were issued for felony theft, monetary instrument abuse, 

and theft of a motor vehicle. The warrants contained statements by other 

officers about the criminal investigations, including summaries of witness 

interviews. The report advised that, “[a]s Seawright has been in federal 

custody since her arrest for supervised release violations, the . . . warrants 

remain outstanding.” 

Most of the violations alleged in the report constituted Grade C 

violations under the Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a). According to the 

report, though, the warrants resulted in a Grade B violation because of 

Seawright’s failure to avoid committing other federal, state, or local crimes. 

See id. The probation officer recommended sentencing based on the Grade B 

violation. See id. § 7B1.1(b). With Seawright’s criminal history category of IV, 

the officer recommended 12 to 18 months imprisonment. 

 Case: 16-30811 Document: 00514099383 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/02/2017
No. 16-30811

4

The Government had not alleged criminal-conduct violations in its 

petition for a warrant to arrest Seawright or in its original Rule to Revoke. A 

few days after the probation officer submitted the dispositional report, the 

Government filed an Amended Rule to Revoke Supervised Release that

included an allegation that Seawright had engaged in criminal conduct while 

on supervised release.

On June 29, 2016, the district court held a revocation hearing. 

Seawright immediately stipulated to the Grade C violations but objected to 

“any revocation based on the Grade B violation based on the pending charges.” 

Seawright’s counsel explained: “I don’t believe those are properly before the 

Court as no evidence has been put in. I think the arrest warrants are not 

sufficient to meet the burden of preponderance of the evidence. Ms. Seawright 

has confrontational rights[.]” 

The district court did not directly address Seawright’s objection. It did 

state the court was “here now if anybody wants to produce any evidence.” No 

evidence was offered. The district court then recited its understanding of the 

record. It stated Seawright “refused to provide a urine sample” at the 

Hammond Addictive Disorders Clinic and “never showed up for treatment.” 

She failed to contact her probation officer, and her probation officer was unable 

to get in touch with her. A detective “informed her probation officer about 

outstanding warrants in Tangipahoa Parish[.]” She had an outstanding 

restitution balance of over $59,000, with the last payment being made in 

February 2015. Asked if they “wish[ed] to correct anything that [the court 

understood was] the state of the record,” both parties said they did not. The 

court found Seawright had “clearly and patently violated the conditions of her 

supervised release, and her supervised release is revoked.” 

The court then proceeded to sentencing. Seawright’s probation officer 

testified. The officer described Seawright’s failure to complete the substance-

 Case: 16-30811 Document: 00514099383 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/02/2017
No. 16-30811

5

abuse evaluation at the Hammond Addictive Disorders Clinic and her failure 

to attend treatment sessions. When asked about the warrants, the officer first 

reiterated Seawright’s failure to complete the substance-abuse evaluation and 

then explained, “with the new arrest and stuff . . . any kind of police contact, 

she is supposed to notify us of that, and of course I wind up finding out through 

a detective.” 

The district court asked Seawright about the warrants, and Seawright’s

counsel again asked the court not to “find any Grade B violations because 

there’s been no testimony put on by the investigating detective or the 

complaints in this case, and it would be a violation of Ms. Seawright’s due 

process rights to find a Grade B violation.” The court responded, “Well, it’s not 

a violation of her due process rights to sentence her for violating the terms of 

her supervised release.” The Government interjected and noted that 

“[r]evocation is mandatory for refusal to comply with drug testing under . . . 18 

U.S.C. § 3583(g)(3),” to which the court responded, “I don’t disagree.” 

Seawright’s counsel also objected to the Guidelines range, arguing the 

range should be 6 to 12 months for a Grade C violation rather than 12 to 18 

months for a Grade B violation. Counsel did not file a memorandum to that 

effect because she “left open the opportunity” that a Grade B violation would 

be before the court if the Government called the witnesses to the criminal 

conduct. The Government did not do so. The court heard counsel’s argument 

regarding the Guidelines range, asked counsel if she “disagree[d] that the 

statutory maximum is 24 months,” and imposed a sentence of 24 months. 

Seawright timely appealed. 

DISCUSSION

We review a district court’s decision to revoke supervised release for an 

abuse of discretion. United States v. McCormick, 54 F.3d 214, 219 (5th Cir. 

 Case: 16-30811 Document: 00514099383 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/02/2017
No. 16-30811

6

1995). On the other hand, any “claim that the district court violated a 

defendant’s right to confrontation in a revocation proceeding is reviewed de 

novo, subject to harmless error analysis.” United States v. Jimison, 825 F.3d 

260, 262 (5th Cir. 2016).

Defendants are entitled to more limited rights in revocation hearings 

than in criminal prosecutions. United States v. Minnitt, 617 F.3d 327, 332 (5th 

Cir. 2010). For instance, the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply in 

revocation hearings. FED. R. EVID. 1101(d)(3). The hearing should be “flexible 

enough” to consider some evidence that would not be admissible in a criminal 

trial. See Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 (1972). 

There are, though, “minimum requirements of due process” applicable to 

revocation proceedings. See id. In Morrissey, the Supreme Court recognized 

that the defendant’s rights in the parole-revocation context include: 

(a) written notice of the claimed violations of parole; (b) disclosure 

to the parolee of evidence against him; (c) opportunity to be heard 

in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; (d) 

the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses (unless 

the hearing officer specifically finds good cause for not allowing 

confrontation); (e) a ‘neutral and detached’ hearing body such as a 

traditional parole board, members of which need not be judicial 

officers or lawyers; and (f) a written statement by the factfinders 

as to the evidence relied on and reasons for revoking parole.

Id. (emphasis added). We have recognized that “‘[t]he same protections 

granted those facing revocation of parole are required for those facing the 

revocation of supervised release.’” McCormick, 54 F.3d at 221 (quoting United 

States v. Copeland, 20 F.3d 412, 414 (11th Cir. 1994)).

Seawright’s argument focuses on her right to confront adverse witnesses. 

This “qualified right” to confrontation during a revocation hearing is part of a 

defendant’s “fair and meaningful opportunity to refute and challenge adverse 

evidence to assure that the court’s relevant findings are based on verified 

 Case: 16-30811 Document: 00514099383 Page: 6 Date Filed: 08/02/2017
No. 16-30811

7

facts.” United States v. Grandlund, 71 F.3d 507, 510 (5th Cir. 1995). “Unlike 

a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right ‘to be confronted with the witnesses’ 

testifying at trial, the confrontation right at revocation hearings that flows 

from the Due Process Clause can be overcome by a showing of ‘good cause.’” 

Jimison, 825 F.3d at 261–62 (quoting Minnitt, 617 F.3d at 332–33). The 

confrontation right is pertinent to the district court’s decision to revoke 

supervised release, but the right “does not apply in connection with the length 

of any resulting prison sentence.” See United States v. Williams, 847 F.3d 251,

254 (5th Cir. 2017), pet. for cert. filed (U.S. June 27, 2017) (No. 17-5015). 

Initially, we conclude that the district court did not abuse is discretion 

in revoking Seawright’s supervised release. See McCormick, 54 F.3d at 219. 

“All that is required for the revocation of supervised release ‘is enough evidence 

to satisfy the district judge that the conduct of the petitioner has not met the 

conditions’ of supervised release.” Minnitt, 617 F.3d at 335–36 (quoting 

McCormick, 54 F.3d at 219 n.3). That standard is clearly met here where 

Seawright stipulated to a long and detailed series of supervised-release 

violations. See McCormick, 54 F.3d at 219.

Seawright, though, claims reversible error for what allegedly was the 

court’s “admitting and relying on otherwise inadmissible hearsay evidence 

without conducting [the] required balancing test, and without making the 

necessary finding of good cause.” She argues the district court erred in 

admitting and relying on the warrants to find that Seawright committed a 

federal, state, or local crime while on supervised release.

Seawright relies on several of our precedents, all dealing with situations

where a court admitted evidence despite a confrontation-based objection and 

relied on that evidence to find the defendant violated a condition of supervised 

release. In one example, the hearing officer found good cause to overrule the 

defendant’s right to confrontation because the testifying victim was a “fearful 

 Case: 16-30811 Document: 00514099383 Page: 7 Date Filed: 08/02/2017
No. 16-30811

8

witness.” Barnes v. Johnson, 184 F.3d 451, 453 (5th Cir. 1999). That witness 

provided the only testimony in support of the sexual-assault allegation against 

the defendant, and the officer relied on that evidence to find the defendant had 

in fact sexually assaulted the victim. Id. at 453–55. In another case, the 

Government offered evidence in support of drug-related allegations against the 

defendant. McCormick, 54 F.3d at 217–18. The district court overruled the 

defendant’s several confrontation-based objections to the evidence and relied 

on that evidence to find the defendant committed the drug-related violations. 

Id. at 218. Seawright also relies heavily on a non-precedential case. See 

United States v. Justice, 430 F. App’x 274 (5th Cir. 2011). There, the 

Government offered hearsay evidence in support of allegations against the 

defendant; the district court overruled the defendant’s confrontation-based 

objections; and the court relied on the evidence to conclude the defendant 

committed the alleged violations. Id. at 276–77. 

In this case, it is not at all clear that the district court admitted and 

relied on hearsay evidence, denied Seawright’s confrontation rights, and found 

that Seawright committed another federal, state, or local crime as the basis for 

revoking Seawright’s supervised release. In fact, a review of the record 

suggests just the opposite. 

Although Seawright did not object to the introduction of the warrants at 

her detention hearing, counsel mentioned several times at her revocation 

hearing that the warrants were not properly before the court, were not 

supported by any evidence, and violated her confrontation rights. Rather than 

directly addressing her objections, the district court swept them aside as 

irrelevant. For instance, at the start of the revocation hearing, Seawright’s 

counsel objected to any revocation “based on the pending charges” in the 

warrants, noting they were not “properly before the Court as no evidence has 

been put in.” The court said “I’m here now if anybody wants to produce any 

 Case: 16-30811 Document: 00514099383 Page: 8 Date Filed: 08/02/2017
No. 16-30811

9

evidence,” but no evidence was produced. The court then summarized its 

understanding of the record, which included the fact that “a detective with the 

Hammond Police Department informed [Seawright’s] probation officer about 

outstanding warrants in Tangipahoa Parish for the following: felony theft, 

monetary instrument abuse, and theft of a motor vehicle.” The court asked if 

either party “wish[ed] to correct anything that [the court understood was] the 

state of the record,” found Seawright “clearly and patently violated the 

conditions of her supervised release” based on that undisputed state of the 

record, and revoked supervised release. 

The second time Seawright’s counsel objected, she asked the court not to 

“find any Grade B violations because there’s been no testimony put on . . . , and 

it would be a violation of Ms. Seawright’s due process rights to find a Grade B 

violation.” The court responded, “Well, it’s not a violation of her due process 

rights to sentence her for violating the terms of her supervised release.” The 

third time Seawright’s counsel objected, she argued the Guidelines range 

should be 6 to 12 months for a Grade C violation, not 12 to 18 months for a 

Grade B violation. The court indicated it understood the argument and 

responded, “Do you disagree that the statutory maximum is 24 months?” 

Counsel responded, “No,” and the court sentenced Seawright to 24 months.1 

In addition to the objections, it is also telling that Seawright’s counsel 

failed to file a memorandum regarding the objection to the Guidelines range —

a point noted by the district court — because she “left open the opportunity 

that if the government were to call [the hearsay declarants] in these underlying 

[charges], then a Grade B violation would be before the Court . . . .” Despite 

the court’s several invitations to the parties to offer evidence, no such evidence 

 

1 After the court imposed sentence, Seawright’s counsel objected to the unreasonableness of 

the sentence but did not argue or object that revocation was based on any Grade B violation. Seawright 

does not argue unreasonableness on appeal.

 Case: 16-30811 Document: 00514099383 Page: 9 Date Filed: 08/02/2017
No. 16-30811

10

was offered. Seawright’s counsel explained to the court, “because no evidence 

was put on about these Grade B violations, we are at a Grade C violation, which 

would be 6 to 12 months.” The court heard the argument, thanked counsel for 

her explanation, and sentenced Seawright to the statutory maximum. 

At no point in this short revocation hearing did the parties discuss 

Seawright’s actual commission of the crimes underlying the warrants. 

Discussion of the warrants was limited to the fact of their existence — a point 

not disputed by Seawright. When her probation officer testified, he focused on 

Seawright’s failure to complete her substance-abuse evaluation and attend

drug treatment. When asked about the warrants, he responded that “with the 

new arrest and stuff . . . any kind of police contact, she is supposed to notify us 

of that, and of course I wind up finding out through a detective.” The hearing

focused on Seawright’s series of supervised-release violations and there is no 

basis, as Seawright contends, to conclude that the warrants “drove” the district 

court’s decision. These facts are quite different from a case Seawright cites, 

where proof of the accused’s identity “was . . . based entirely on hearsay 

evidence, and almost surely had a significant effect on the court’s ruling.”

Jimison, 825 F.3d at 264. The district court, which was familiar with this 

defendant and her repeated failure to abide by the terms of her supervised 

release, lawfully exercised its discretion to revoke supervised release and 

impose sentence.

Moreover, we note that any error would be harmless. In one precedent, 

the alleged supervised-release violations included failure to report, failure to 

participate in drug and alcohol treatment, failure to pay restitution, and 

failure not to commit a state crime. United States v. English, 400 F.3d 273, 

274 (5th Cir. 2005). Although most of the violations occurred during 

supervised release, the state-law violations occurred a few days after 

supervised release expired. Id. On appeal, we held that any reliance by the 

 Case: 16-30811 Document: 00514099383 Page: 10 Date Filed: 08/02/2017
No. 16-30811

11

district court on the state-law violations was harmless because the district 

court noted that the other supervised-release violations were sufficient to 

support revocation. Id. at 275–76. “‘Where there is an adequate basis for the 

district court’s discretionary action of revoking probation, the reviewing court 

need not decide a claim of error as to other grounds that had been advanced as 

a cause of revocation.’” Id. at 276 (quoting McCormick, 54 F.3d at 219 n.3). In 

our case, too, it is clear from the revocation hearing that the district court 

considered Seawright’s Grade C violations — to which Seawright stipulated —

as sufficient to support revocation and imposition of sentence. 

Our analysis to this point has focused on the revocation hearing itself. 

There was, though, an error in the judgment. That document repeated all the 

Government’s allegations in the Rule to Revoke, including committing another 

federal, state, or local crime; it stated Seawright “admitted guilt” to all of the 

violations. As the Government noted at oral argument, Seawright did not 

“admit[] guilt” to committing another federal, state, or local crime — that

finding is clearly belied by the hearing transcript. Indeed, the district court 

noted that Seawright’s “case hasn’t been brought up yet in Tangipahoa Parish,” 

and advised her not to say anything that would be incriminating. Just as it is 

clear from the hearing that Seawright stipulated to the Grade C violations, it 

is also clear that Seawright did not stipulate, i.e., “admit[] guilt,” to committing 

a federal, state, or local crime. “Where there is a conflict between the oral 

pronouncement and the written judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.” 

Id. A limited remand is appropriate to correct the revocation judgment.

We REMAND to the district court for correction of the error, and 

AFFIRM in all other respects.

 Case: 16-30811 Document: 00514099383 Page: 11 Date Filed: 08/02/2017