Court Opinion

ID: 9454852
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:02:05.822334+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:04.122382
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13918    Document: 33-1     Date Filed: 08/04/2023   Page: 1 of 6

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-13918
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       RICHARD DOUGLAS TRAVIS,

                                                  Defendant- Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 3:12-cr-00055-LC-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13918      Document: 33-1     Date Filed: 08/04/2023     Page: 2 of 6

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 22-13918

       Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Richard Travis appeals the District Court for the Northern
       District of Florida’s order revoking his supervised release and im-
       posing a 21-month sentence, arguing that the Court failed to con-
       duct the proper balancing test under United States v. Frazier, 26 F.3d
       110 (11th Cir. 1994), before admitting hearsay evidence during his
       revocation hearing. While the District Court did err in failing to
       perform a Frazier test, Travis has not shown that this error was
       harmful. Therefore, we affirm.
                                         I.
               A federal grand jury in the Northern District of Florida in-
       dicted Richard Travis on one count of possessing a firearm as a
       felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Travis
       initially pleaded not guilty, but later pleaded guilty to the charge.
       The District Court sentenced him to 96 months’ imprisonment fol-
       lowed by three years’ supervised release. Travis appealed, and this
       Court affirmed his sentence. See United States v. Travis, 747 F.3d
       1312 (11th Cir. 2014) (per curiam). Travis’s supervised release term
       began on August 20, 2021.
              In May 2022, United States Probation Officer Elizabeth Lane
       petitioned for a warrant for Travis, alleging that he had violated six
       conditions of his supervised release: (1) changing residence without
       informing the Probation Officer; (2) being unemployed without ex-
       cuse; (3) failing to attend mental health counseling; (4) committing
USCA11 Case: 22-13918     Document: 33-1      Date Filed: 08/04/2023    Page: 3 of 6

       22-13918               Opinion of the Court                        3

       criminal mischief and burglary; (5) committing criminal mischief,
       burglary, and false imprisonment; and (6) committing sexual bat-
       tery on an underage victim.
              At the revocation hearing, Travis, through counsel, admit-
       ted the first four violations of his supervised release; he contested
       violations five and six because those charges were dismissed by the
       state court. The Government introduced video evidence of police
       interviewing the alleged minor victim from violation six, as well as
       social media messages between Travis and the alleged victim, but
       the Government did not present the victim as a witness. Travis
       objected to the introduction of the video and the social media con-
       versation on confrontation grounds because he did not have the
       opportunity to cross-examine the victim.
              Travis argued that United States v. Frazier, 26 F.3d 110 (11th
       Cir. 1994), required the District Court to conduct a balancing test
       to decide if the hearsay evidence should be admitted. The Govern-
       ment argued that the hearsay evidence was reliable because other
       evidence in the record can corroborate the statement. The Gov-
       ernment also stated that they tried to get the victim to testify, but
       suspected that she did not show up because there was a warrant for
       her arrest. The District Court overruled Travis’s objection without
       commenting on Frazier, conducting a balancing test, or giving any
       kind of reasoning.
              The District Court determined that, in addition to the four
       violations Travis admitted to, he committed violations five and six.
       Violation six was a Grade B violation, and when combined with
USCA11 Case: 22-13918      Document: 33-1     Date Filed: 08/04/2023     Page: 4 of 6

       4                      Opinion of the Court                 22-13918

       Travis’s criminal history category of VI, the recommended guide-
       line range was 21 to 24 months. The District Court said it had con-
       sidered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the applicable guideline rec-
       ommendations, and all the evidence, statements, and information
       in the violation report, and that it was sentencing Travis to 21
       months’ imprisonment. Neither Travis nor the Government ob-
       jected.
              Travis timely appealed, arguing that the District Court vio-
       lated his due process rights when it admitted hearsay evidence
       without conducting the balancing test required by Frazier. With-
       out that hearsay evidence, according to Travis, his violation would
       only have been a Grade C violation, with a lower guideline sen-
       tence range and a resulting lower sentence.
                                        II.
              We review a district court’s revocation of supervised release
       for abuse of discretion. Id. A district court may revoke a term of
       supervised release if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence
       that the defendant violated a condition of supervised release. 18
       U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3).
              The Federal Rules of Evidence and the Sixth Amendment do
       not apply in revocation hearings. Frazier, 26 F.3d at 114; see also
       United States v. Reese, 775 F.3d 1327, 1329 (11th Cir. 2015). How-
       ever, hearsay is not automatically admissible, because minimal due
       process requirements still apply. Frazier, 26 F.3d at 114. This in-
       cludes the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses,
       unless the factfinder finds good cause for not requiring it. Id. A
USCA11 Case: 22-13918       Document: 33-1      Date Filed: 08/04/2023      Page: 5 of 6

       22-13918                Opinion of the Court                           5

       district court must balance the defendant’s right to confrontation
       against the government’s grounds for denying it and must ensure
       the hearsay statement is reliable. Id. In Frazier, we held that the
       district court erred because it “made no finding that the hearsay
       was reliable, nor did it weigh Frazier’s right of confrontation
       against the Government’s reasons for not producing the witness.”
       Id.
               If hearsay evidence is admitted in violation of due process,
       though, the defendant must show that the error was harmful. See
       id. This requires showing that the challenged evidence is materi-
       ally false or unreliable and that it actually served as the basis for the
       sentence. United States v. Taylor, 931 F.2d 842, 847 (11th Cir. 1991).
               Here, the District Court erred by admitting the hearsay evi-
       dence without conducting an explicit Frazier balancing test. See Fra-
       zier, 26 F.3d at 114. However, Travis has not shown harmful error.
       He made no such showing before the District Court and has not
       demonstrated on appeal that the challenged evidence is materially
       false or unreliable. See Taylor, 931 F.2d at 847.
              The Government presented significant evidence that Travis
       violated the terms of his supervised release. It presented Facebook
       logs of Travis saying, “I’m ready to give you this dick again,” im-
       plying that he had previously had sex with the alleged victim. The
       Government corroborated this with testimony that the account be-
       longed to Travis, including his probation officer verifying that the
       Facebook logs showed a conversation with Travis’s ex-girlfriend
USCA11 Case: 22-13918   Document: 33-1    Date Filed: 08/04/2023   Page: 6 of 6

       6                   Opinion of the Court              22-13918

       and that she recognized the account’s profile picture as being
       Travis. Therefore, any error was harmless.
             AFFIRMED.