United States v. Ruby, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2011

Ruby on supervised release after prison for felon in possession of a gun; violated condition by committing third-degree assault in Colorado.
Colorado state court convicted Ruby of third-degree assault but acquitted other charges; sentencing reflected a more violent version of events than undisputed facts.
Federal probation officer filed a Petition for Arrest and Supervised Release Violation Report describing a violent sequence leading to the revocation.
District court credited the Violation Report over Ruby’s version, imposing an 18-month sentence within the guidelines range and 12 months of supervised release.
Ruby objected to reliance on the Violation Report but did not request an evidentiary hearing or contest specific evidence; he stipulated to the violation and prior violence history.
Appeal challenges whether hearsay evidence at sentencing was admissible and whether Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) applies to the sentencing phase of a revocation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) applicability	Ruby argues Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) required an interest-of-justice finding for hearsay at sentencing.	Court held Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) does not apply to the sentencing phase of revocation proceedings.	Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) does not apply to sentencing.
admissibility of hearsay at sentencing	Ruby contends hearsay is unreliable and should not influence sentencing.	District court acted within relaxations of evidence rules; hearsay with minimal reliability can be used if corroborated.	Hearsay may be considered at sentencing with minimal indicia of reliability and corroboration.
plain-error review of sentencing procedure	Any error in relying on hearsay constitutes procedural error affecting the sentence.	No reversible error; Ruby did not show plain error affecting substantial rights.	No plain error; challenge to hearsay evidence fails.

United States v. McBride, 633 F.3d 1229 (10th Cir. 2011) (standard for reviewing revocation-sentence procedures)
Curtis v. Chester, 626 F.3d 540 (10th Cir. 2010) (due process and Rule 32 framework in revocation proceedings)
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1972) (parole revocation due process rights)
Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (U.S. 1973) (due process in revocation is similar to probation; focus on reliable information)
United States v. Browning, 61 F.3d 752 (10th Cir. 1995) (sentencing can rely on information beyond trial admissibility)
United States v. Damato, 672 F.3d 832 (10th Cir. 2012) (minimal indicia of reliability required for hearsay at sentencing)
United States v. Todd, 515 F.3d 1128 (10th Cir. 2008) (corroboration supports reliability of hearsay at sentencing)
United States v. Fennell, 65 F.3d 812 (10th Cir. 1995) (unreliability when sole, unsworn hearsay without corroboration)
United States v. Lloyd, 566 F.3d 341 (3d Cir. 2009) (balancing approach to hearsay evidence in revocation sentencing rejected in some circuits)
Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241 (U.S. 1949) (hearsay permissible at sentencing under traditional due process)
Littlesun, 444 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2006) (distinguishes sentencing from guilt adjudication rules)