Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHI GIANG HO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-03-25
Citations: 598 F. App'x 317
Docket Number: No. 14-10657
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHI GIANG HO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 598
Pages: 317–318

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHI GIANG HO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-10657
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 25, 2015.
James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
James Matthew Wright, Sam L. Ogan, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Kevin Joel Page, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Chi Giang Ho, Seagoville, TX, pro se.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Chi Giang Ho, federal prisoner # 82698-179, challenges his 18-month sentence for the revocation of his supervised release. Ho argues that the district court erred by admitting the video identification made by the victim. He argues that the admission of this evidence violated- his due process right to confront the witnesses against him as stated in Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 480, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972). A supervisee has a due process right to "a fair and meaningful opportunity 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), opinion clarified, 77 F.3d 811 (5th Cir.1996). This right allows confrontation of witnesses pertaining to the revocation decision and does not extend to those witnesses pertaining to the revocation sentence. Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 484, 92 S.Ct. 2593; United States v. Beydoun, 469 F.3d 102, 108 (5th Cir.2006).
Ho asserts that this evidence was the only evidence to support a finding that he committed a Grade A violation of his release and that the evidence tainted both the decision to revoke and his sentence. Ho does not dispute that he admitted all of the revocation allegations except the assault. Because Ho admittedly possessed cocaine while under supervision, the district court had ample basis to conclude that he committed a Grade B violation. See United States v. Bishop, 228 Fed.Appx. 464, 465 (5th Cir.2007) (finding that possession of any amount of cocaine was punishable as a felony under Texas law and therefore constituted a Grade B violation). "Upon a finding of a Grade A or B violation, the court shall revoke probation or supervised release." U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(a)(l). As the admitted Grade B violation required that Ho's release be revoked, his assertion that the evidence related to his Grade A violation affected the decision to revoke is spurious. Ho's remaining argument is that the challenged evidence tainted his sentence. As this argument pertains to his sentence only, the confrontation arguments he makes based on Morrissey do not apply.
AFFIRMED.
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.