Amaury Rodriguez, a defendant previously convicted of distributing child pornography, was serving a term of supervised release with strict conditions, including a prohibition on using computers without court approval and mandatory registration as a sex offender. In May 2023, the probation office petitioned to revoke his release, alleging ten violations including failure to register in Florida, Arkansas, and federally; traveling to Arkansas without notifying his probation officer; obstructing government operations; failing to attend treatment; and using a computer. A district court held an evidentiary hearing where the government relied heavily on hearsay evidence, including affidavits from records custodians and testimony from the probation officer regarding communications with treatment providers. The district court found Rodriguez guilty of nine of the ten violations, revoked his release, and imposed a 24-month prison sentence followed by a life term of supervised release. Rodriguez appealed, arguing that the admission of hearsay violated his due process rights under *United States v. Frazier* and that the computer restriction was unconstitutional.
The Eleventh Circuit applied an abuse of discretion standard to the revocation and sentencing decisions. Regarding the confrontation rights claim, the court reiterated that while the Federal Rules of Evidence do not strictly apply in revocation proceedings, defendants are entitled to minimal due process protections. Under *Frazier*, courts must balance the defendant's right to confront witnesses against the government's grounds for denying confrontation, ensuring the hearsay bears minimal indicia of reliability. The court found that the district court did not clearly err in admitting hearsay regarding the sex offender registration violations (Violations 1, 2, 3, and 10). The records custodians' affidavits were facially reliable, and Rodriguez failed to show that cross-examination would undermine their evidentiary value or that the evidence was materially false. However, the court clearly erred in sustaining Violations 7 and 8, which concerned failure to participate in treatment. The government conceded there was no competent evidence for Violation 7 (mental health treatment). For Violation 8 (sex offender treatment), the finding relied on hearsay from a treatment provider, yet the district court denied confrontation by claiming the evidence was non-hearsay. The appellate court reasoned that without the provider's statements, there was no evidence Rodriguez missed the appointment. Consequently, the findings for Violations 7 and 8 were vacated. On the constitutional challenge, the court affirmed that broad computer restrictions with prior-approval clauses survive *Packingham* challenges, as they are tailored to the specific risks of sex offenses and allow for judicial discretion.
The case is remanded to the district court for resentencing. The district court must conduct a new evidentiary hearing to determine if Rodriguez committed Violations 7 and 8, strictly applying the *Frazier* balancing test and ensuring any hearsay admitted is reliable and subject to confrontation. The sentence will be recalculated without consideration of the vacated treatment violations. The computer restriction condition remains in place as a valid special condition of supervised release.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download