Opinion ID: 167825
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Confrontation Clause Argument

Text: 13 Mr. Bustamante next argues that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him by relying on the hearsay testimony of the officers involved in his case. He contends that the Sixth Amendment requires that the other individuals involved in drug crimes, who identified Mr. Bustamante as their supplier, actually testify at the sentencing hearing. Acknowledging that prior cases in our circuit have rejected this argument, Mr. Bustamante argues that the Supreme Court's recent opinion in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), requires us to reconsider and reverse our prior position. 14 We disagree. Crawford concerned the use of testimonial hearsay statements at trial and does not speak to whether it is appropriate for a court to rely on hearsay statements at a sentencing hearing. As we have explained, [t]he Supreme Court has made clear that the constitutional requirements mandated in a criminal trial as to confrontation and cross-examination do not apply at non-capital sentencing proceedings. United States v. Beaulieu, 893 F.2d 1177, 1180 (10th Cir.1990). We see nothing in Crawford that requires us to depart from our precedent that constitutional provisions regarding the Confrontation Clause are not required to be applied during sentencing proceedings. United States v. Hershberger, 962 F.2d 1548, 1554 (10th Cir.1992); see also United States v. Luciano, 414 F.3d 174, 179 (1st Cir.2005) (Nothing in Crawford requires us to alter our previous conclusion that there is no Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause right at sentencing.); accord United States v. Littlesun, 444 F.3d 1196, 1200 (9th Cir.2006); United States v. Baker, 432 F.3d 1189, 1254 n. 68 (11th Cir.2005); United States v. Stone, 432 F.3d 651, 654 (6th Cir.2005); United States v. Brown, 430 F.3d 942, 944 (8th Cir.2005); United States v. Roche, 415 F.3d 614, 618 (7th Cir.2005); United States v. Martinez, 413 F.3d 239, 243 (2d Cir.2005).