we affirm. Jim’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment claims rely on the same inference from Officer Piel’s testimony. Officer Piel testified that he spoke with witnesses at the scene and included their statements in his police report. Jim claims that this testimony indicated: (1) that Officer Piel interviewed witnesses in addition to the four who testified at trial, and (2) that the additional witnesses named Jim as the aggressor in the fight. After carefully reviewing the record, we determine, contrary to Jim’s argument, that Officer Piel made no reference to statements made by any non-testifying witness. Where there is no non-testifying witness, there can be no violation of Jim’s right to confront that witness. See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 51, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, because the record does not
holding that any confrontation right is found in the fourteenth amendments due process clause not the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment holding that the confrontation clause applies only to trials and not to sentencing hearings holding that the confrontation clause applies only to testimonial hearsay holding the confrontation clause applies only to testimonial statements holding that the text of the confrontation clause  applies to witnesses against the accused  in other words those who bear testimony 