## Facts

- Allen Lamond Ruckstuhl was on supervised release following a federal drug conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C).
- During supervised release, Ruckstuhl was involved in a domestic incident with his girlfriend, Jasmine Jones.
- Jones reported that Ruckstuhl punched her and, as she ran away, pointed a gun at her.
- While the gun was allegedly pointed at her, Jones called 911 and stated that Ruckstuhl had a gun.
- Responding officer Brenda Crispin arrived shortly after the call; Jones told Crispin that Ruckstuhl had punched her and pointed a gun at her.
- A superseding petition alleged multiple supervised-release violations, including domestic violence/aggravated assault, felon in possession of a firearm, grand theft of a motor vehicle, and failing to work at a lawful occupation.
- At the revocation hearing, the district court admitted and relied on Jones’s 911 call statements and her statements to Officer Crispin, offered for their truth.
- The district court found violations, revoked supervised release, and imposed a prison sentence.

## Issues

1. Whether admitting and relying on the victim’s out-of-court statements (911 call and on-scene statements) at a supervised-release revocation hearing violated due process confrontation rights.
2. Whether the evidence presented, including hearsay and the officer’s testimony, was sufficient under the preponderance standard to support revocation.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the revocation of supervised release and the resulting sentence.
- The court held the district court did not err in admitting and relying on the 911 call and the victim’s on-scene statements.
- The court concluded the evidence was sufficient to support findings of supervised-release violations under the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.
- Applying deferential review, the court found no abuse of discretion in the evidentiary rulings and no clear error in the factual findings.

## Legal Principles

- In supervised-release revocation proceedings, violations must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3).
- Revocation hearings provide a due process-based opportunity to confront adverse witnesses, but confrontation may be limited upon a showing of good cause and when hearsay is sufficiently reliable.
- Courts assess hearsay in revocation proceedings by balancing the releasee’s confrontation interest against the government’s reasons for not producing the declarant and the reliability of the statements.
- Contemporaneous 911 reports and immediate on-scene statements made during or right after a stressful event may be treated as reliable for revocation purposes, particularly when corroborated by police observations.
- Appellate review is deferential: revocation and evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion; factual findings are reviewed for clear error.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit upheld revocation of supervised release where the district court relied on the victim’s 911 call and her immediate statements to a responding officer, concluding the hearsay was reliable and the government’s proof met the preponderance standard without reversible due process error.


United States v. Ruckstuhl, 2017 WL 6523344 (11th Cir. 2017)