United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-3282 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAVID PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 1:12-cr-00859-1 — Steven C. Seeger, Judge. ____________________

ARGUED JANUARY 25, 2024 — DECIDED APRIL 24, 2024 ____________________

Before HAMILTON, BRENNAN, and KIRSCH, Circuit Judges. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. While appellant David Perez was attending a public event, a police surveillance camera rec- orded him holding what appeared to be a firearm. His condi- tions of federal supervised release, not to mention 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), made it unlawful for Perez to possess a firearm. At a supervised release revocation hearing, the government sub- mitted as evidence a police surveillance video that the gov- ernment argued showed Perez holding a gun. The district 2 No. 22-3282 judge asked Perez’s probation officer to narrate the video as it was played during the hearing. Perez objected to the probation officer’s narration of the video and asked to cross-examine her. The district court de- nied that request. The judge asserted that the probation officer was not a witness and explained that he wanted the narration only to have a record of the video’s contents for the hearing transcript. The judge did, however, invite defense counsel to suggest questions that the judge himself could pose to the probation officer. Defense counsel did not take up that offer. In this appeal, Perez argues that the probation officer was in substance an adverse witness and that the district court vi- olated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b)(2)(C) and his Fifth Amendment right to due process by refusing to allow counsel to cross-examine her. Perez also challenges the dis- trict court’s ultimate finding that he possessed a firearm and the resulting revocation of his supervised release. The probation officer’s narration of the video was clearly adverse to Perez. Under these unusual circumstances, his counsel should have had the opportunity to cross-examine the probation officer. In the end, however, we think the error was harmless. The record does not show that the district court relied upon the probation officer’s testimony on any disputed issue in finding that Perez possessed a firearm in violation of the terms of his supervised release. The video provided ample evidence that Perez possessed a firearm, and the court did not abuse its discretion in revoking his supervised release. We af- firm the judgment of the district court, while counseling dis- trict courts against using this well-intentioned procedural shortcut in revocation hearings. No. 22-3282 3 I. Factual and Procedural History In November 2013, David Perez pled guilty to one count of possessing cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). A federal court sentenced him to 120 months in prison followed by six years of supervised release. Perez began his term of supervised release on July 6, 2020. One condition of his supervised release was the nearly uni- versal condition that he not possess a firearm, ammunition, destructive device, or other dangerous weapon. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d), citing 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b)(8) (discretionary condi- tions of probation). On October 13, 2022, the United States Probation Office submitted to the district court a supervised release violation report alleging that Perez had violated the prohibition on possessing a firearm. The report cited a Chicago Police Department report that describ