Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stanley Lee VANCE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-10-01
Citations: 249 F. App'x 659
Docket Number: No. 06-50596
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Stanley Lee VANCE, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 249
Pages: 659–660

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Stanley Lee VANCE, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-50596.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 24, 2007 .
Filed Oct. 1, 2007.
Alka Sagar, Esq., Becky S. Walker, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los An-geles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michael Tanaka, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Stanley Lee Vance appeals from the judgment revoking supervised release and imposing a 24-month suspended prison term and a 48-month term of supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Vance challenges the district court's admission of a hearsay report at the revocation hearing without allowing him to cross-examine its author. Although defendants have a limited right to confront adverse witnesses prior to revocation of supervised release, see Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972); see also Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.1(b)(2), the district court's use of the report, if error, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the witness whose statement was being offered actually testified, see United States v. Comito, 177 F.3d 1166, 1170 (9th Cir.1999).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.