US v. Jamal Pulley
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:01-cr-00439-DKC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999631883].. [14-4802]
Appeal: 14-4802
Doc: 31
Filed: 07/31/2015
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4802
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMAL PULLEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District
Judge. (8:01-cr-00439-DKC-1)
Submitted:
June 29, 2015
Decided:
July 31, 2015
Before WILKINSON and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Meghan Skelton, Appellate
Attorney,
Greenbelt,
Maryland,
for
Appellant.
Rod
J.
Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Thomas P. Windom, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 14-4802
Doc: 31
Filed: 07/31/2015
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Jamal Pulley was sentenced to 54 months’ imprisonment, to
be followed by a 3-year term of supervised release, after he
pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012).
Upon release from
imprisonment, Pulley violated his terms of supervision and the
district court revoked his supervised release, sentenced him to
time
served,
and
reimposed
two
years
of
supervised
release.
During this second period of supervision, the district court
found that Pulley again violated his terms of supervision by
(1) failing to report to the probation office within 72 hours of
his
release
from
custody,
(2)
leaving
the
permission, and (3) committing new offenses.
district
without
The district court
sentenced Pulley to 17 months’ imprisonment to be followed by 18
months’ supervised release.
On appeal, Pulley argues that the
district court violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b)(2)(C) and his
rights to due process and confrontation by admitting hearsay
evidence to prove that he committed new offenses and failed to
self-surrender on outstanding charges.
We
review
a
district
court’s
We affirm.
ruling
to
admit
hearsay
evidence during a supervised release hearing for an abuse of
discretion.
Cir.
2014).
United States v. Ferguson, 752 F.3d 613, 616 (4th
“Supervised
release
revocation
hearings
are
informal proceedings in which the rules of evidence, including
2
Appeal: 14-4802
those
Doc: 31
Filed: 07/31/2015
pertaining
to
hearsay,
Pg: 3 of 4
need
not
be
strictly
applied.”
United States v. Doswell, 670 F.3d 526, 530 (4th Cir. 2012).
However,
due
process
affords
a
releasee
a
limited
right
“to
confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses” at a revocation
hearing
“unless
the
hearing
officer
specifically
cause for not allowing confrontation.”
U.S. 471, 489 (1972).
revocation
hearing,
finds
good
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408
Prior to admitting hearsay evidence in a
“the
district
court
must
balance
the
releasee’s interest in confronting an adverse witness against
any
proffered
good
cause
Doswell, 670 F.3d at 530.
for
denying
such
confrontation.”
Further, the due process guarantee is
embodied in the procedural rule that a releasee is “entitled to
. . . question any adverse witness unless the court determines
that the interest of justice does not require the witness to
appear.”
rulings
error
Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b)(2)(C).
are
is
subject
harmless
to
if
harmless
we
error
conclude
However, evidentiary
review,
“that
the
such
that
error
had
any
no
substantial and injurious effect or influence on the outcome
. . . .”
Ferguson, 752 F.3d at 618 (internal quotation marks
omitted).
Regardless
of
whether
the
hearsay
evidence
was
admitted, we hold that any alleged error was harmless.
does
not
contend
that
the
district
court
lacked
properly
Pulley
sufficient
grounds to revoke his supervised release, or that he should not
3
Appeal: 14-4802
Doc: 31
Filed: 07/31/2015
Pg: 4 of 4
have served a term of imprisonment, or even that his sentence
was
plainly
unreasonable.
Rather,
Pulley
argues
that
the
district court improperly assessed a Grade B violation instead
of a Grade C violation against him because it relied on hearsay
evidence to show that Pulley committed new offenses while on
supervision.
(2013).
See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual, § 7B1.1(a)
The district court, however, explicitly stated that it
would impose the same sentence against Pulley even if it did not
think
he
had
committed
the
new
offenses,
based
on
Pulley’s
admitted failure to report to the probation office after his
first
revocation
hearing.
We
accordingly
conclude
that
any
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We
evidentiary error was harmless.
dispense
with
oral
argument
because
the
facts
and
legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?