United States v. Brian Nolley, 678 F. App'x 223

Brian Nolley appealed the revocation of his supervised release and the revocation sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3).
At the revocation hearing the district court admitted hearsay evidence: police reports and an unsworn out‑of‑court statement; Nolley did not object below.
Nolley claimed this admission violated his due‑process right to confront adverse witnesses and sought reversal on appeal.
The appeal proceeded under plain‑error review because Nolley forfeited objection at the district court.
Nolley had admitted to possession and use of controlled substances, which constitute a Grade B violation making revocation mandatory.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding Nolley failed to show that any confrontation error affected his substantial rights or the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether admitting hearsay without performing a balancing test violated Nolley’s due‑process right to confrontation	Nolley: Admission of police reports and an unsworn statement deprived him of confrontation/cross‑examination rights	Govt/District Ct: Any error was forfeited; even if error, other evidence and Nolley’s admissions supported revocation	Assuming arguendo error, court found Nolley failed to show it affected substantial rights; affirmed
Whether the alleged confrontation error affected likelihood of revocation	Nolley: Hearsay influenced finding of violation and thus revocation	Govt: Nolley admitted drug possession/use (Grade B) and other evidence supported revocation	Nolley’s admissions and other evidence made revocation mandatory; error did not alter outcome
Whether the alleged error affected length of revocation sentence	Nolley: Cross‑examination could have reduced sentence	Govt: No reasonable probability sentence would be less; statements were unrefuted	Nolley cannot show a reasonable probability of a lesser sentence; no relief granted
Whether plain error warranting correction exists (fairness/integrity/public reputation)	Nolley: Even if plain error, it impacted fairness/integrity of proceeding	Govt: Nolley failed to rebut statements and cannot show prejudice to integrity/public confidence	Court: Nolley did not meet the high plain‑error remedial standard; affirmed

Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (error must be clear or obvious and affect substantial rights to warrant plain‑error relief)
Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (standard for plain‑error review and remedy)
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (due‑process protections in parole/supervised‑release revocation proceedings)
McCormick, 54 F.3d 214 (right to confront and cross‑examine adverse witnesses in revocation proceedings)
Alaniz‑Alaniz, 38 F.3d 788 (balancing test for admitting hearsay in revocation proceedings)
Kindred, 918 F.2d 485 (cited for hearsay/confrontation balancing in revocation context)
Jimison, 825 F.3d 260 (admission that possession/use of drugs constitutes Grade B violation)
Mares, 402 F.3d 511 (prejudice requires undermining confidence in outcome)
Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (standard for showing reasonable probability of a different outcome)