Does a district court violate a defendant's due process rights by relying solely on an uncorroborated, recanted, out-of-court identification to revoke his supervised release when the court has no basis for finding the initial accusation credible or reliable?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Timothy Ivey was serving a term of federal supervised release when he was accused of committing an aggravated assault outside of a bar at 2:00 a.m. The victim, Rufus Parrott, was intoxicated at the time of the attack and suffered head trauma. That night, he told the responding officer that he had an argument with Mr. Ivey inside of the bar about Mr. Parrott’s niece, with whom Mr. Ivey was in a relationship, and that Mr. Ivey followed him outside and hit him with a gun that then “broke into several pieces.” At Mr. Ivey’s revocation hearing, Mr. Parrott testified that his initial report was that he had been drinking heavily, that he did not know who attacked him outside, that he was unsure whether it was with a gun, and that he did not even know whether the man he confronted in the bar was actually Mr. Ivey. The district court declared that Mr. Parrott was “a liar” and that his testimony was “not to be believed,” but nevertheless relied exclusively on his initial accusation to find that Mr. Ivey committed the assault and thus violated his terms of supervision. The questions presented are: (1) Does a district court violate a defendant’s due process rights by relying solely on an uncorroborated, recanted, out-of-court identification to revoke his supervised release when the court has no basis for finding the initial accusation credible or reliable? (2) Did the revocation of Mr. Ivey’s supervised release violate his due process rights under the Fifth Amendment? ii