United States v. Marquist Williams, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 1745

Marquist Williams pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug‑trafficking crime; received 60 months custody and 3 years supervised release.
While on supervised release, probation filed a petition alleging Williams possessed controlled substances, submitted invalid/dilute urine samples, and instructed other addicts how to cheat tests.
Williams pleaded “true” to the Supervised Release Violation Report (SRVR).
The district court revoked his supervised release, adopted the SRVR, and sentenced Williams to 24 months’ imprisonment plus 24 months’ supervised release.
On appeal Williams argued the district court violated his Morrissey confrontation rights by relying on hearsay that he helped others cheat drug tests; he did not object at the revocation hearing, so review is for plain error.
The Fifth Circuit held that any error could not have affected Williams’s substantial rights because mandatory revocation under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g) was required based on admissions (possession and multiple failed tests); hearsay, at most, could have influenced sentence length, to which the Morrissey confrontation right does not apply.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court plainly erred by considering hearsay that Williams helped others cheat drug tests	The hearsay violated Williams’s Morrissey confrontation rights and could have affected the revocation outcome or sentence	Any error was forfeited; even if error, mandatory revocation under §3583(g) was triggered by Williams’s admissions so his substantial rights were not affected	No plain error: revocation was mandatory based on admitted violations; hearsay, if considered, could only relate to sentence length (Morrissey confrontation right not applicable to sentence length)
Whether Williams could show prejudice because the court might have granted an exception under §3583(d)	The court’s reliance on hearsay might have prevented it from exercising discretion to avoid mandatory revocation under §3583(d)	Williams failed to show he would have prevailed on §3583(d); his treatment history was sporadic and unsuccessful, so relief was unlikely	Williams did not meet burden to show the error affected substantial rights; no plain error

Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (Due process requirements for parole/supervised‑release revocation hearings)
United States v. Grandlund, 71 F.3d 507 (Federal Rules of Evidence need not apply in revocation hearings)
United States v. McCormick, 54 F.3d 214 (right to confront adverse witnesses in revocation proceedings; Morrissey balancing and ‘good cause’ rule)
United States v. Kindred, 918 F.2d 485 (use of indicia of reliability in weighing hearsay in revocation hearings)
United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256 (plain‑error review when defendant failed to object at revocation)
United States v. Diaz, 637 F.3d 592 (plain‑error standard and correction discretion)
United States v. Beydoun, 469 F.3d 102 (confrontation right not applicable to sentence length following revocation)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (defendant bears burden to show plain error affected substantial rights)