for denying confrontation.” Id. In addition, the hearsay statement must be reliable. Id. A court’s failure to perform this balancing test may be harmless if the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that the defendant violated the terms of his supervised release. Id. If admission of hearsay evidence violates due process, “the defendant bears the burden of showing that the court explicitly relied on the information;” the defendant must show “(1) that the challenged evidence is materially false or unreliable, and (2) that it actually served as the basis for the sentence.” See United States v. Taylor, 931 F.2d 842, 847 (11th Cir.1991) (quotation omitted) (discussing the admissibility of hearsay testimony in the context of a probation revocation hearing); see also Frazier, 26 F.3d at 113 (<HOLDING>). Here, even assuming arguendo that the
holding that the petitioners attempted distinction between parole and probation hearings does not affect this courts mootness determination because spencer applies to the revocation of supervised release holding that there is no constitutional right to representation by counsel at a parole revocation holding that revocation of the harriss parole like revocation of a defendants probation did not subject him to double jeopardy under the united states constitution because of similarities between the two holding that standard for revocation of probation is preponderance of the evidence holding that there is no significant conceptual difference between the revocation of probation or parole and the revocation of supervised release