Date: May 7, 2026

Revocation Hearings in the Tenth Circuit: No Sua Sponte Rule 32.1 Confrontation Balancing Absent an Objection

1. Introduction

In United States v. Price (10th Cir. May 5, 2026), Anthony Steven Price appealed the revocation of his supervised release arising from two federal cases: (1) a 2018 conviction for Hobbs Act robbery and felon-in-possession, and (2) a later escape conviction. After his May 2025 release, Price was accused of attacking his wife’s daughter’s boyfriend on July 20, 2025, allegedly using an object described in the record as a “small novelty baseball bat” (with later uncertainty in testimony as to what the object was). The victim suffered a dislocated shoulder and a deep head gash requiring emergency-room treatment.

The district court revoked supervised release after finding (by a preponderance of the evidence) that Price committed a new crime (assault and battery with a dangerous weapon) and possessed a dangerous weapon. On appeal, Price challenged those two findings, arguing (i) insufficient evidence and (ii) that revocation could not rest on hearsay (notably, a police report and a probation officer’s testimony relying on it).

2. Summary of the Opinion

The Tenth Circuit affirmed. It held that the district court’s contested findings were supported by the record—particularly the police report and the probation officer’s testimony—and that credibility determinations against Price and his witness were for the district court to make. The court also rejected Price’s hearsay-based challenge, applying plain-error review because Price did not object to the hearsay or invoke confrontation rights at the revocation hearing. The panel emphasized it had “never held” that a district court must sua sponte conduct the Rule 32.1 balancing test before admitting hearsay, so any alleged error was not “plain.”

3. Analysis

3.1. Precedents Cited

United States v. Disney, 253 F.3d 1211 (10th Cir. 2001): Cited for the standard of review—revocation decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion. This frames the appellate posture as deferential, especially on fact-bound issues.
United States v. Battle, 706 F.3d 1313 (10th Cir. 2013): Defines abuse of discretion as reliance on an incorrect legal conclusion or a clearly erroneous factual finding. This provided the lens through which the panel assessed the sufficiency/record-support arguments.
United States v. Cortes-Gomez, 926 F.3d 699 (10th Cir. 2019): Supplies the “clearly erroneous” test: findings are clearly erroneous only if unsupported by the record or if the appellate court is left with a “definite and firm conviction” of mistake. The panel used this to conclude the district court’s findings were not clearly erroneous given the police report and corroborative testimony.
United States v. Rodebaugh, 798 F.3d 1281 (10th Cir. 2015): Reinforces that credibility determinations are “within the district court’s province as the fact-finder.” This neutralized Price’s attempt to re-litigate the district court’s decision to credit the police report over Price’s and his mother-in-law’s testimony.
United States v. Williams, 106 F.4th 1040 (10th Cir. 2024): Cited for the evidentiary flexibility of revocation hearings—courts may consider materials (letters, affidavits, and similar evidence) that would be inadmissible at a criminal trial. This undercut the premise that the police report was categorically unusable.
United States v. McGehee, 672 F.3d 860 (10th Cir. 2012): Establishes that when a defendant fails to object (including to hearsay or confrontation issues) at a revocation hearing, appellate review is for plain error. This case was key because Price did not object to the hearsay nature of the evidence.
United States v. Jones, 818 F.3d 1091 (10th Cir. 2016): Explains that the Rule 32.1 balancing test “governs whether hearsay evidence may be used to revoke supervised release,” i.e., the court must balance confrontation interests against the government’s good cause. Price relied on this principle, but the panel distinguished the procedural posture: Price never invoked the right at the hearing.
United States v. Hernandez, 104 F.4th 755 (10th Cir. 2024): Provides the “plainness” requirement—an error is plain only if clear or obvious under current law. Because the Tenth Circuit had not required a sua sponte Rule 32.1 balancing, any alleged error could not qualify as plain.
United States v. Body, 791 F. App'x 807 (11th Cir. 2019): Not controlling and distinguished. The panel noted the Eleventh Circuit defendant preserved the issue, unlike Price. The citation highlights that preservation is often outcome-determinative in hearsay/confrontation disputes at revocation.

3.2. Legal Reasoning

(a) Sufficiency / record support under the revocation standard.
The court reiterated that revocation requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Applying clear-error and abuse-of-discretion review, the panel found ample record support: the police report described an assault producing significant injuries and a head gash; the probation officer’s testimony drew from the report and conversations with a charging officer and a family member. Against this, Price and his mother-in-law denied any weapon and even denied seeing blood; the district court found them not credible—a determination the appellate court would not disturb.

(b) Hearsay, confrontation, and preservation.
Revocation hearings allow more relaxed evidentiary rules, but Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) still gives a releasee an opportunity to “question any adverse witness” unless the court finds “the interest of justice” does not require the witness’s appearance. The advisory note contemplates an on-the-record balancing of confrontation interests against governmental good cause. The panel’s decisive move, however, was procedural: Price did not object to the hearsay evidence and did not assert his Rule 32.1 confrontation right. That failure triggered plain-error review. And because the Tenth Circuit had not clearly required district courts to conduct the Rule 32.1 balancing test sua sponte, any alleged error was not “clear or obvious.” On that basis, Price’s hearsay challenge failed.

3.3. Impact

Although labeled an “Order and Judgment” and “not binding precedent” (except under law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel), the decision conveys a practical rule for litigants in the Tenth Circuit:

Defense preservation is critical. If a supervisee wants live testimony instead of police reports or secondhand summaries, counsel must timely invoke Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) and object to hearsay. Otherwise, appellate review will likely be plain-error, where relief is difficult.
Hearsay can carry the day in revocation if unchallenged. The opinion confirms that police reports and probation-officer testimony summarizing third-party accounts can support findings, especially under the preponderance standard, when the district court finds contrary testimony not credible.
No clear requirement (yet) for sua sponte balancing. The panel’s statement that the circuit has “never held” such a requirement signals that, absent further precedent, district judges may admit hearsay in revocation proceedings without initiating the Rule 32.1 balancing on their own—so long as the defendant does not press the confrontation issue.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Supervised release revocation: A post-prison supervision term can be revoked if the judge finds a condition was violated. This is not a new criminal trial; the procedures are streamlined.
Preponderance of the evidence: The judge must find it is more likely than not that the violation occurred (a lower standard than “beyond a reasonable doubt”).
Abuse of discretion / clear error: On appeal, the court gives substantial deference to the district court’s factual findings and credibility determinations.
Hearsay in revocation: Statements offered for their truth that would be excluded at trial can sometimes be considered at revocation, but Rule 32.1 can require a balancing if confrontation is invoked.
Plain error: If you did not object below, you generally must show an obvious legal error that affected the outcome; if the law is unsettled, the error is usually not “plain.”

5. Conclusion

United States v. Price affirms a revocation based on documentary and secondhand accounts and underscores two controlling dynamics in supervised-release litigation: (1) appellate courts defer heavily to district-court factfinding and credibility determinations under the preponderance standard, and (2) confrontation and hearsay limits under Rule 32.1 are often forfeited unless timely raised, with plain-error review serving as a formidable barrier on appeal. In practical effect, the case signals that in the Tenth Circuit, the burden is on the defense to trigger Rule 32.1’s confrontation balancing at the hearing—otherwise, hearsay may suffice to support revocation findings.