against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.” 10 . Notably, we did not rely on Williams in holding that a defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause are "severely restrict ed” in noncapital, Guideline sentencing proceedings. See United States v. Rodriguez, 897 F.2d 1324, 1328 (5th Cir.1990). 11 . “Life or death?” has a distinctly different tone and importance than, "death eligible, or not death eligible?” 12 . This does not imply that Confrontation Clause error is “structural error” in the technical sense of that phrase. “Confrontation Clause errors, like other trial errors, are subject to harmless-error analysis.” Hall, 152 F.3d at 406. 13 . See Robinson v. Polk, 438 F.3d 350, 359 (4th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 514, 166
holding confrontation clause inapplicable at sentencing holding the confrontation clause applies only to testimonial statements holding that the confrontation clause applies only to trials and not to sentencing hearings holding that the confrontation clause does not apply to the sentencing hearing holding that the confrontation clause applies equally to sentencing proceedings tried to a jury