Opinion ID: 3036031
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Testimonial Hearsay Contained in PSR

Text: Blandin argues that the district court erred by relying on a contested statement in his PSR when denying his request for a downward adjustment under § 2P1.1(b)(2).4 According to Blandin, the statement was improper “testimonial hearsay” in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation as established by Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). 3 The fact that Blandin was not ultimately charged with trespassing is irrelevant because he admits to being arrested for trespass, which precludes a finding that he “returned voluntarily” under § 2P1.1(b)(2). See U.S.S.G. § 2P1.1 cmt. n.2 (explaining that a defendant must turn himself in “not in connection with an arrest or other charges”). 4 The contested statement reads: “Records of the U.S. Marshal s [sic] reflect that the defendant attempted to elude police officers,” at the time of his arrest. 1264 UNITED STATES v. BLANDIN Blandin concedes, however, that he failed to raise a Confrontation Clause claim before the district court; therefore, we can reverse only if we find plain error affecting Blandin’s substantial rights. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993). [5] Under Olano, Blandin bears the burden of showing that any alleged error was prejudicial. Id. at 734. Blandin cannot carry this burden, however, because any alleged error arising from the district court’s consideration of the contested statement was harmless. Even if Blandin had cooperated with the arresting officers, he nonetheless would have failed to qualify for a downward adjustment under § 2P1.1(b)(2) for the reasons discussed in Part I, supra. Accordingly, we need not reach the merits of Blandin’s Confrontation Clause claim.