[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 1- 15 39 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ D. C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 7- cr-0 02 28 -WS-M-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us JAM ES ANTHONYCAMPB ELL, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (No ve m be r 28 , 20 12 ) Befo re MAR CUS, EDMONDSON, andBLACK, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:

Case: 11-15392 Date Filed: 11/28/2012 Page: 1 of 5Ja m es Ant ho ny Cam pb el l ap pe al s t he rev oc at io n o f hi s s up erv is edrel eas e an d t he res ul tant24 -m on th sen te nc e b as edon hi s arres t fo r se co nd -d eg ree r ap e, se xu al ab us e, an d s od omy of am in or . On ap pe al , Cam pb el l ar gu es th atth e d is tri ct co urt i m pr op erl y adm it te d h ears ay

ev id en ce athi s re vo cat io n h eari ng be cau se th e co urt fa il edto ba la nc e h is rig htto co nf ro ntth e al le ge d v ic ti m

ag ai ns t t he go ve rn m en t’s re as on s fo r no t p ro du ci ng he r atth e h eari ng as r equi redby Uni te d St at es v. Fra zi er, 2 6 F .3d11 0 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 4) . No rev ers ib le erro r ha s b een sh own ; we af

firm . W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s ev id en ti ary de ci si on s, as well as t he rev oc at io n of supe rv is edrel eas e, fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Un it edSta te s v . Nov at on , 27 1 F .3d 96 8, 1 00 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) (ev id en ti ary de ci si on s) ; Fr azi er, 2 6 F .3dat 1 12 (rev oc at io n o f supe rv is edrel eas e).

“ Alt ho ug h t he Fed eral Ru le s o f Evi de nc e d o n otap pl y insupe rv is edrel eas e rev oc at io n h eari ng s, the adm is si bi li ty of he ars ay is no t au to m at ic . Defen da nt s in vo lv edinrev oc at io n p ro ceed in gs are en ti tl edto cert ai n m in im al du e p ro ces s requi rem en ts .” Fraz ie r, 26 F.3dat 1 14 . Am on g t he du e p ro ces s re qu ire m en ts av ai labl e ata rev oc at io n h eari ng is th e ri gh t t o c on fro ntan d c ro ss -ex am in e adve rs e wit ne ss es . Id.; see als o F ed .R.Cri m .P. 32 .1(b )(2 )(C) (st at in g b efo re supe rv is edrel eas e is rev ok ed , “ [t]he pe rs on is en ti tl edto . . . anop po rtu ni ty to . . . 2 Case: 11-15392 Date Filed: 11/28/2012 Page: 2 of 5qu es ti on an y adve rs e wit ne ss un le ss th e co urt d et erm in es th atth e in te res t o f jus ti ce do es no t re qu ire th e wit ne ss to ap pe ar”) . The rig htto cro ss -ex am in e ad ve rs e wit ne ss es at arev oc at io n o f supe rv is ed rel eas e h eari ng is no t ab so lu te ; i ns te ad , “ in de ci di ng whet he r orno t t o a dm it he ars ay tes ti m on y , th e co urt m

us t b al an ce the de fen da nt ’s rig htto co nf ro nt adve rs e wit ne ss es ag ai ns t t he gro un ds ass ert edby the go ve rn m en t fo r de nyin g co nf ro nt at io n.” Frazi er, 2 6 F .3dat 1 14 . In ad di ti on , th e h ears ay st at em en t m

us t be rel iabl e. Id . W

he re the pro pe rly con si de redev id en ce -- alo ne -- is su ffi ci en t t o supp ort t he di st ric t co urt’s co nc lu si on , any erroris ha rm le ss . Id. To es tabl is h h arm , Cam

pb el l m us t s at is fy

a two -p arttes t. “ If ad m is si on of he ars ay ev id en ce h as vi ol at eddu e p ro ces s, t he de fen da ntbe ars th e b ur de n o f sh owi ng th atth e co urt ex pl ic it ly reli edon th e in fo rm at io n. Th e d efen da ntm us t sh ow (1 ) th atth e ch al le ng edev id en ce i s m at eri al ly fals e o r un rel iabl e, an d (2 ) th at itactua ll y serve d a s t he ba si s fo r th e se nt en ce.” Un it edSta te s v . Tay lo r, 93 1 F .2d 84 2, 8 47 (11 th Cir . 19 91 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io ns m ark s, ci ta ti on s, an d e m ph as is om it te d) . Hears ay m ay be adm it te d a t s en te nc in g i f th ere a re “ su ffi ci en t i nd ic iaof rel iabi li ty, th e [d is tri ct ] co urt m ak es ex pl ic itfin di ng s o f fac t as to cred ib il it y , and th e d efen da ntha s an op po rtu ni ty to re bu t t he ev id en ce.” Un it edSta te s v . 3 Case: 11-15392 Date Filed: 11/28/2012 Page: 3 of 5Zlat og ur , 27 1 F .3d10 25 , 10 31 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ) (quo ta ti on s o m it te d) . “ [T]he fo cu s

is up on th e que st io n o f [the he ars ay ’s] rel iabi li ty, whi ch m us t b e d et erm in edon a cas e b y cas e b as is .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Lee, 68 F.3d12 67 , 12 75 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ).

“ Whi le itm ay

be advi sabl e an d i n s om e in st an ces ne ces sa ry fora di stric t co urt t o m ak e d is ti nc t fi nd in gs reg ard in g t he rel iabi li ty of he ars ay st at em en ts us edat se nt en ci ng , th e ab se nc e o f su ch fin di ng s d oe s n otne ces sa ril y requi re re ve rs al or rem an d wh ere t he rel iabi li ty of th e st at em en ts is ap pa ren t fr om th e rec or d.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Gord on , 23 1 F .3d75 0, 7 61 (11 thCir . 20 00 ). At h is rev oc at io n h eari ng , th e d is tri ctco urt o ve rru le d C am pb el l’s h ears ay ob jecti onan d p erm it te d t he po li ce o ffi cer a ss ig ne d t o i nv es ti ga te th e al le ge d rape an d s ex ua l ab us e to tes ti fy ab ou t wh atth e al le ge d v ic ti m to ldth e o ffi cer abo utth e in ci de nt . Here, th e co urt m ad e n o e xp res s fi nd in gs ab ou t t he rel iabi li ty of th e he ars ay st at em en t und er the requi redFraz ie r-b al an ci ng tes t. Eve n i f th e co urt erre d i n t hi s re sp ect , ot he r ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t t o re vo ke Fraz ie r’s supe rv is ed rel eas e: forex am

pl e, Cam pb el l’s ad m is si on to hi s p ro ba ti on off ic er, fo ll owi ng hi s arre stforsec on d- de gr ee rape , th athe ha d n o i de a th atth e al le ge d v ic ti m was o nl y 13 an d t ha t h e b el ie ve d tha t s he was t he ag e o f co ns en t. Bas edon Cam pb el l’s kn owl ed ge th athe was a rres te d o n s eco nd -d eg ree r ap e ch arg es an d g iv enth e ag e of th e v ic ti m , th e d is tri ctco urt s pe ci fic al ly hig hl ig ht edth atCam pb el l’s co m

m en ts 4 Case: 11-15392 Date Filed: 11/28/2012 Page: 4 of 5to hi s p ro ba ti on off ic er were su ffi ci en t t o c on cl ud e th atCam pb el l h advi ol at edth e te rm s an d c on di ti on s o f hi s s up erv is edrel eas e. Fraz ie r, 26 F.3dat 1 14 . Abo utth e res ul ti ng sen te nc e, ev enif we a ss um e, arg ue nd o, t ha t t he di st ric t co urt erredby notm ak in g arel iabi li ty find in g b efo re re lying on he ars ay st at em en ts , rem an d i s n otne ces sa ry . Cam pb el l h as no t d em on strat edth atth e he ars ay ev id en ce was m at eri al ly fals e o r un rel iabl e. See Taylor , 93 1 F .2dat 8 47 . In st ead , itap pe ars th at , gi ve n t he co nt ex t o f ot he r ev id en ce -- in cl ud in g Cam pb el l’s s ta te m en ts to hi s p ro ba ti on off ic er, the ex is te nc e o f th e ex pl ic ittex t m es sa ge s fr om

Cam pb el l o n the vi ct im ’s ph on e, an d t he vi ct im ’s age -- th e p ol ic e of fic er’s t es ti m on y

ab ou t wh atth e v ic ti m

to ldth e o ffi cer h ap pe ne d was rel iabl e. Gor do n, 2 31 F.3dat 7 61 . If the co urt erredby rely in g o n h ears ay ev id en ce i n re vo ki ng Cam pb el l’s supe rv is edrel eas e, th e err orwas h arm le ss . AFFIR MED.

5 Case: 11-15392 Date Filed: 11/28/2012 Page: 5 of 5