United States of America v. David Casimiro Bravo-Cuevas

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
AK/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID CASIMIRO BRAVO-CUEVAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-10219
D.C. No. 2:02-CR-01002-SRB
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
David Casimiro Bravo-Cuevas appeals from the nine-month sentence
imposed following the revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
MAR 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

AK/Research 09-10219 2
Bravo-Cuevas contends that his due process rights were violated by the
district court’s denial of his right to confront and cross-examine witnesses. We
review for plain error because Bravo-Cuevas failed to object to the hearsay
testimony of the probation officer, and failed to challenge the accuracy of the
documentation used to support the allegation that he violated a condition of his
supervised release. See United States v. Rodriguez-Lara, 421 F.3d 932, 948 (9th
Cir.2005). The district court listened to the testimony and reviewed the
documentation before concluding that the government had proved the violation by
a preponderance of the evidence. On these facts, the district court’s failure to
balance Bravo-Cuevas’ right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against the
government’s good cause for denying the right did not constitute plain error
because any error did not affect his substantial rights. See United States v.
Simmons, 812 F.2d 561, 564-65 (1987); see also United States v. Comito, 177 F.3d
1166, 1170 (9th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --