1. Whether the district court's reliance on hearsay evidence, including a complaining
witness's video statement and photographic evidence, in a supervised release revocation
proceeding violated the petitioner's rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth
Amendment because it was unreliable and there was no good cause found to preclude cross-examination?

2. Whether the district court's imposition of a 60-month sentence for a supervised release
violation, that was based on a finding that a sexual assault occurred by a preponderance of the
evidence even though no charges were filed, was procedurally and substantively unreasonable?

Whether the district court's reliance on hearsay evidence in a supervised release revocation proceeding violated the petitioner's Confrontation Clause rights and whether the 60-month sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable