18-764
United States v. McCourty

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
                                   SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT.
CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS
PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE
32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER
IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE
FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION
“SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A
COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

        At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held
at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New
York, on the 27th day of September , two thousand nineteen.

PRESENT:
                 ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
                      Chief Judge,
                 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
                 JOSEPH F. BIANCO,
                      Circuit Judges.


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                      Appellee,

                 v.                                             No. 18-764

PETER MCCOURTY,

                      Defendant-Appellant.


 For Defendant-Appellant:                      ALLEGRA GLASHAUSSER, Federal Defenders
                                               of New York, New York, NY.

 For Appellee:                                 ELIZABETH MACCHIAVERNA, David C. James
                                               (on the brief), Assistant United States
                                               Attorneys, for Richard C. Donoghue, United
                                                      States Attorney for the Eastern District of
                                                      New York, Brooklyn, NY.

       Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New

York (Matsumoto, J.).

       UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND

DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

       Defendant-Appellant Peter McCourty appeals from the March 16, 2018 judgment of

conviction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Matsumoto,

J.) revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 24 months’ imprisonment. McCourty

argues (1) that the district court abused its discretion by admitting hearsay evidence at his violation

of supervised release (“VOSR”) hearing and (2) that there was insufficient evidence to support the

court’s conclusion that he had violated the terms of his supervised release by committing three

New York State misdemeanors: assault in the third degree, menacing in the third degree, and

endangering the welfare of a child under the age of seventeen. All three charges arose from

McCourty’s February 11, 2017 arrest. According to McCourty’s girlfriend, “K.B.,” who made the

911 call that precipitated the arrest, McCourty punched her in the face, kicked and dragged her out

of a car in which they were transporting their child, and continued to hit her in the street. We

assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and

the issues on appeal.

I.     Admission of Hearsay

       McCourty first challenges the district court’s admission of K.B.’s out-of-court statements

to the arresting officer. The Government did not call K.B., and instead sought to admit her

statements to an officer who responded to her 911 call, both through the officer’s testimony and in




                                                  2
the Domestic Incident Report (“DIR”) following the arrest. We agree with the district court that

there was good cause to admit the statements.

       When the Government requests admission of a hearsay statement at a VOSR hearing that

does not fall wi