Full Opinion

Case: 26-30158 Document: 66-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/05/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 26-30158 FILED Summary Calendar November 5, 2026 ____________ Thomas B. Plunkett, III Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Raymond Marshall, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:19-CR-172-1 ______________________________ Before King, Higginson, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Raymond Marshall appeals the revocation of his supervised release and the resulting sentence. First, he argues that the district court plainly erred by finding that he committed battery upon his pregnant dating partner based entirely on hearsay without finding good cause for the alleged victim’s absence or assessing the reliability of her statements. Because there is no authority that requires a specific good cause finding if a defendant fails to * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 26-30158 Document: 66-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/05/2026 No. 26-30158 make a proper objection, the district court’s failure in this case to conduct a sua sponte balancing and decide whether there was good cause to excuse confrontation is not clear or obvious error. See United States v. McDowell, 973 F.3d 362, 365-66 (5th Cir. 2020). Second, Marshall argues that the district court abused its discretion in finding by a preponderance of the evidence that he violated mandatory condition number one of his supervised release through his possession of a stolen truck. Any error in the district court’s reliance on Marshall’s possession of a stolen truck in revoking his supervised release was harmless because there was an adequate basis for revoking Marshall’s supervised release in light of his other Grade B violation and three Grade C violations. See United States v. English, 400 F.3d 273, 276 (5th Cir. 2005). In the alternative, Marshall argues that the district court erroneously classified that stolen truck violation as a Grade B violation. He failed to preserve this issue for appeal. See United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 326- 27 (5th Cir. 2013). Because Marshall’s challenge to the district court’s finding that he committed another Grade B violation does not survive plain error review on appeal, he is unable to show that any error affected his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). AFFIRMED. 2