with the government’s reasons for not producing the witness. This was error under Rule 32.1. Further, we cannot conclude that the district court would have admitted the hearsay if it had properly balanced the interests because, even if the hearsay was reliable (which we think it was), the government has offered no reason whatsoever for failing to produce Simmons. Accordingly, there is nothing in the record to balance against Mosley’s interest. Nonetheless, even where a proper balancing of the interests would weigh in favor of excluding hearsay, its erroneous admission may still be harmless for the alternate reason that the violation of supervised release would have been found even without the hearsay evidence. See, e.g., United States v. Johnson, 927 F.2d 999, 1003-04 (7th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). That is the case here because, considering
holding that admission of hearsay testimony was harmless where the jury heard admissible testimony from three other sources to the same effect holding although admission of victim impact testimony was error it was harmless in light of strong evidence against defendant holding that a violation of the hearsay rule was harmless holding that admission of prior statement constituted error but was harmless when other admissible evidence established the same fact holding that admission of hearsay was harmless where strong circumstantial evidence established the same facts