United States v. Rodriguez, 919 F.3d 629

Rodriguez pleaded guilty in 2011 to distribution of crack, received 84 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release; violations alleged during supervised release in 2017.
May 2017: urine test administered by probation officer returned positive for amphetamines; follow-up confirmed.
Aug 22, 2017: Providence detectives observed suspected street-level drug activity; one passenger (Thibault) retrieved heroin from her bra and made spontaneous statements; Rodriguez (driving the other car) was arrested and had keys and $100.
Police used a key found on Rodriguez to enter a Covell Street apartment linked to him (mailbox name, utility bill, photos); a warrant search uncovered multiple drugs and paraphernalia.
Magistrate judge excluded most of Thibault’s out-of-court hearsay statements (allowing only her spontaneous “it’s in my bra” as a statement against interest), found both violations proved by a preponderance, and recommended revocation; district court adopted the R&R but relied in part on the previously excluded hearsay.
District court revoked supervised release, sentenced Rodriguez to 18 months imprisonment plus 4 years supervised release; Rodriguez appealed arguing (1) district court improperly relied on excluded hearsay for Count 1 and (2) insufficient evidence for Count 2 (amphetamine use).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Government)	Defendant's Argument (Rodriguez)	Held
Whether district court may rely on hearsay previously excluded by the magistrate when finding a supervised-release violation (Count 1)	Government did not contest admissibility below and argued any error should be reviewed for plain error; maintains statements supported the finding	District court improperly relied on hearsay the magistrate had excluded; that reliance was an abuse of discretion	Court: District court abused discretion by relying on previously excluded hearsay, but error was nonconstitutional and harmless under Kotteakos given abundant admissible evidence; Count 1 affirmed
Whether evidence was sufficient to find intentional amphetamine use (Count 2)	Positive urine tests and probation officer testimony support a finding by preponderance; reasonable inferences suffice	Positive test alone insufficient; alternative explanations (e.g., spiking) possible	Court: On de novo review, evidence (confirmed positive tests, absence of evidence supporting alternatives) permits a reasonable inference of deliberate use; Count 2 affirmed

United States v. Whalen, 82 F.3d 528 (1st Cir. 1996) (standard for reviewing revocation decisions and forfeiture/plain-error principles)
United States v. Sepúlveda-Contreras, 466 F.3d 166 (1st Cir. 2006) (plain-error inapplicable when no reasonable opportunity to object)
United States v. Fontanez, 845 F.3d 439 (1st Cir. 2017) (confrontation rights in supervised-release proceedings; balancing test for hearsay)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (constitutional error harmlessness standard)
Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946) (nonconstitutional harmless-error standard; "fair assurance" test)
United States v. Brennick, 337 F.3d 107 (1st Cir. 2003) (positive drug test can support supervised-release violation finding)