United States v. Jose Mendoza, 414 F. App'x 714

Mendoza pleaded guilty to transporting illegal aliens; district court sentenced five months’ imprisonment plus three years of supervised release with conditions including 100 hours community service, a $100 special assessment, and a $1000 fine payable in 20 installments.
Probation Office filed a petition to revoke supervised release for (1) a new law violation—possession of marijuana, (2) association with criminals, (3) failure to perform community service, and (4) failure to pay the fine.
At the revocation hearing, Mendoza admitted failing to pay the fine and perform community service but denied marijuana possession and criminal association.
The district court found that Mendoza committed a new violation and associated with criminal activity, revoked supervised release, and imposed a fifteen-month prison sentence with no further supervised release.
The revocation relied on December 31, 2009 events: a Suburban and a minivan stopped in a rural area with marijuana in the minivan; Mendoza identified in a lineup as “Julio”; phone calls and incriminating items (weightlifting gloves, headlamp) connected to the alleged criminal enterprise.
On appeal, Mendoza challenged the denial of confrontation rights regarding a witness’s statements and the sufficiency of the evidence; the Fifth Circuit affirmed, denying reversible error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Confrontation right violated by admitted statement	Mendoza	United States	No reversible plain-error; no explicit objection to confrontation; no due-process error found
Sufficiency of evidence for new violation and criminal association	Mendoza	United States	Evidence sufficient to find a preponderance of the evidence of a new violation and criminal association

United States v. McCormick, 54 F.3d 214 (5th Cir. 1995) (standard for revocation of supervised release; preponderance required)
United States v. Alaniz-Alaniz, 38 F.3d 788 (5th Cir. 1994) (confrontation rights in revocation hearings)
United States v. Swarn, 254 Fed. Appx. 376 (5th Cir. 2007) (plain-error review for Confrontation Clause claims in revocation context)
McBride v. Johnson, 118 F.3d 432 (5th Cir. 1997) (confrontation-rights and balancing considerations in admissibility decisions)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 S. Ct. 1423 (2009) (plain-error standard and impact on substantial rights)
United States v. Belser, 214 F. App'x 961 (11th Cir. 2007) (plain-error and balancing considerations in Confrontation claims)