MEMORANDUM *

Eric Scroggins’s due process right to confrontation was not violated when the district court revoked his supervised release after considering the evidence at the contested hearing.

The non-hearsay evidence established that Scroggins had violated the terms of his supervised release by carrying a firearm. See United States v. Hall, 419 F.3d 980, 986 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that hearsay evidence could not have significantly affected the court’s ultimate finding because “[t]he non-hearsay evidence at the hearing was substantial and sufficient to conclusively prove the ... charge”); see also United States v. Comito, 177 F.3d 1166, 1170-73 (9th Cir. 1999) (applying a *52harmless beyond a reasonable doubt analysis to a violation of the right to confrontation protected by the due process clause). LAPD Officer Coats saw Scroggins run from the vehicle she had stopped — holding a bulge in his waistline and wearing a blue baseball cap. Officer Coats testified that Scroggins ran toward the Hyde residence, and police officers found a blue baseball cap and handgun in Hyde’s yard. Moreover, Officer Coats testified that Scroggins was not wearing this blue baseball cap at the time of his arrest.

AFFIRMED.