United States of America v. Herbert Duret

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-2704
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Herbert Duret
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: March 3, 2026
Filed: March 6, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Herbert Duret appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release
based on multiple violations of his conditions of release. He argues that the district
1The Honorable Sarah E. Pitlyk, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 2 --

court lacked jurisdiction to consider a new law violation and violated his right to
confrontation by relying on unreliable hearsay testimony to prove that violation.
After carefully reviewing the record and the parties’ arguments, we conclude
that the district court did not lack authority to decide the new law violation. See Fed.
R. Crim. P. 32.1(b)(1)(C); United States v. Pardue, 363 F.3d 695, 697 (8th Cir. 2004)
(reviewing interpretation of Rule 32.1 de novo); United States v. Pearson, 787 Fed.
Appx. 511, 514-15 (10th Cir. 2019) (unpublished order). We further conclude that
the victim’s hearsay statements were reliable because they were sufficiently
corroborated, were made while the events were fresh in her memory, and were
credible. See United States v. Sutton, 916 F.3d 1134, 1138 (8th Cir. 2019) (reviewing
challenge de novo when defendant argues admission of hearsay at revocation hearing
violated due-process rights); United States v. Harris, 112 F.4th 624, 627-28 (8th Cir.
2024); United States v. Farmer, 567 F.3d 343, 347-48 (8th Cir. 2009).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --