N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. DOUGLAS JOHN M ILLER , Jr., De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 15-50346

D.C . No. 3:11-c r-02145-B EN-1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia R oge r T. B e nite z , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M arc h

11, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : PREGER SON, PAEZ, a nd NGUYEN, C irc u i t Judge s. Dougla s John M ille r, Jr. a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s finding tha t he c om m itte d a n a ssa ult in viola

tion of thete rm s of his supe rvise d re le a s e . He argue s that the distric t c ourt viola

te d his dueproc e ss right to c onfront witne sse s at his 

# FIL ED APR 06 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.re voc ation he aring by a dm itting he arsay

te stim ony

of the vic tim . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . To de te rm ine whe the r to a dm i t he arsay te stim ony

tha t im plic ate s a de fe nda n t’ s right to c onfront witne sse s in a re voc ation he a

ring, the distric t c ourt m ust “ we igh the re le a se e ’ s inte re st in his c onstitutiona lly gua rante e d right to c onfronta tion a ga inst theGove rnm e n t’ s good c a use for de ny i ng it.” Unite d State s v . C omito , 177 F.3d 1166, 1170 (9th C ir. 1999). In c onside ring the re le a se e ’ s inte re s t in c onfronting the witne ss, the c ourt looks to “ the im porta nc e of the he arsay e vide nc e to the c ourt’ s ultim ate finding a n d the nature of the fa c ts to be prove n by the he arsay

e vide nc e .” Id. at 1171. He re , c i rc um sta ntia l e vide nc e strongly supporte d t

he vic tim ’ s sta

te m e nt ide ntify ing M i lle r. M i lle r wa s pre se nt a t the s c e ne of the a s sa

ult, with blood on his shoe s, a nd se ate d ne ar a tra il of fre sh blood le a ding dire c tly

to the site of the be ating. Thec i rc um sta nc e s in whic h

the vic t im m a de his sta

te m e nt furthe r sugge st re lia bility : he m a d e the sta

t e m e nt ne arly c onte m p orane ously

with theinc ide nt, whilehis fa c e wa s still bloody . B e c a use the s e fa c t ors c orroborate the vic tim ’ s sta t e m e nt, the y

dim i nish M ille r’ s inte re st in c onfronting him . C orre spondingly , the gove rnm e n t’ s atte m pts to se c ure the vic tim ’ s in-c ourt te stim ony we re a de quate . The vic tim ha d a l re a dy

inform e d loc a l polic e tha t he did 2not wish to proc e e d with le g a l a c tion a fte r the a ssa u lt oc c urre d. The gove rnm e nt none the l e ss a

tte m pte d to re a c h him

be fore the re v oc ation he aring. An offic e r ide n tifie d a

nd visite d the vic tim ’ s la st-known a ddre ss, but thevic tim no longe r live d the re . She the n c a lle d the vic tim ’ s la st-known phone num be r but re a c he d a re c o rde d m e ssa g e . Fina lly , the offic e r ran the vic tim ’ s inform ation through a la w e nforc e m e nt da

t a ba se but found no othe

r a ddre sse s or phone num be rs for him . Give n the e v ide n c e c orroborating thevic tim ’ s out-of-c ourt sta te m e nt a nd the gove rnm e nt’ s e fforts to re a c h him , we c onc l ude tha t the distric t c ourt prope rly a dm itte d the he arsay

te stim o ny . AFFIRM E D.

3