United States v. Tremayne Nadatra Pace
694 F. App'x 764
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Tremayne Pace appealed the revocation of his supervised release and imposition of a prison sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e).
- The district court relied on hearsay statements (including statements made the day of the event and later confirmed) in the revocation hearing.
- The Federal Rules of Evidence do not strictly apply to supervised-release revocation hearings; hearsay can be admissible subject to due-process constraints.
- Pace argued the hearsay was false/unreliable and that the court improperly relied on it to revoke his supervised release and sentence him.
- The district court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Pace violated release conditions (including drug-related violations) and imposed a sentence.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed factual findings for clear error and constitutional/sentencing challenges de novo, then affirmed the revocation and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of hearsay in revocation hearing | Pace: district court erred by relying on hearsay statements | Government: hearsay is admissible in revocation proceedings and was properly admitted | Court: hearsay admissible; Frazier balancing satisfied; no error |
| Reliability of hearsay evidence | Pace: hearsay was false or unreliable and violated due process | Government: statement was contemporaneous, later confirmed, and credible | Court: Pace failed to show material falsity or unreliability; court could credit the statements |
| Whether hearsay was basis for sentence | Pace: sentence rested on the hearsay evidence | Government: other drug-related evidence independently supported revocation/sentence | Court: Pace failed to show hearsay actually served as basis; sentence would stand without it |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Copeland, 20 F.3d 412 (11th Cir.) (standard of review for revocation determinations)
- United States v. Almand, 992 F.2d 316 (11th Cir.) (clear-error review for revocation findings)
- United States v. Crawford, 407 F.3d 1174 (11th Cir.) (clear-error standard described)
- United States v. Almedina, 686 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir.) (factfinder’s choice not clearly erroneous when plausible constructions exist)
- United States v. Chau, 426 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir.) (de novo review of constitutional sentencing challenges)
- United States v. Frazier, 26 F.3d 110 (11th Cir.) (hearsay admissible in revocation hearings; balancing confrontation rights)
- United States v. Ghertler, 605 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir.) (due-process test for sentencing based on allegedly false evidence)
- United States v. Taylor, 931 F.2d 842 (11th Cir.) (analogy of probation revocation standards to supervised-release revocation)