Date: May 7, 2026

United States v. Price: No Sua Sponte Rule 32.1 Confrontation Balancing—Unobjected-to Hearsay Supports Supervised-Release Revocation Under Plain-Error Review

1. Introduction

In United States v. Price (10th Cir. May 5, 2026) (nonprecedential “Order and Judgment”), the Tenth Circuit affirmed the revocation of Anthony Steven Price’s supervised release in two consolidated matters arising from prior federal convictions (Hobbs Act robbery/felon-in-possession and a later escape). After Price’s release in May 2025, a July 2025 domestic altercation led to state charges for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon.

The central appellate issues were whether the evidence was sufficient—given that much of it was hearsay (a police report and a probation officer’s secondhand account)—to support findings that Price: (1) committed a new crime (assault and battery with a dangerous weapon), and (2) possessed a dangerous weapon. Price also argued that revocation could not rest on hearsay alone and implied a confrontation right problem under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b)(2)(C).

2. Summary of the Opinion

The Tenth Circuit affirmed. It held that the district court’s findings were supported by the record—most notably the police report describing injuries and witness accounts that Price used an object (described as a small novelty bat or possibly brass knuckles) causing a deep head gash requiring emergency treatment.

The court also rejected Price’s hearsay/confrontation argument because he did not object to the hearsay, did not invoke Rule 32.1, and did not request the declarants’ presence for cross-examination. Therefore, any alleged Rule 32.1 error was reviewed only for plain error, and the court emphasized that it has “never held” a district court must sua sponte conduct the Rule 32.1 balancing test before admitting/considering hearsay.

3. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

United States v. Disney, 253 F.3d 1211, 1213 (10th Cir. 2001): Cited for the standard of review—revocation decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion. This framed the appellate posture as deferential to the district court’s revocation decision.
United States v. Battle, 706 F.3d 1313, 1317 (10th Cir. 2013): Provided the definition of abuse of discretion—reliance on an incorrect legal conclusion or clearly erroneous factfinding. This guided the court to separate legal error (e.g., confrontation/hearsay rules) from factual sufficiency.
United States v. Cortes-Gomez, 926 F.3d 699, 708 (10th Cir. 2019): Supplied the “clearly erroneous” test for factual findings. The panel used it to conclude the district court’s findings were not “without factual support in the record.”
United States v. Rodebaugh, 798 F.3d 1281, 1290 (10th Cir. 2015): Reinforced that credibility determinations are for the district court as fact-finder. This supported affirmance where the district court disbelieved Price and his mother-in-law.
United States v. Williams, 106 F.4th 1040, 1045 (10th Cir. 2024): Cited for the proposition that revocation hearings are flexible and may consider materials not admissible at a criminal trial (e.g., letters, affidavits, comparable hearsay). This undercut Price’s claim that revocation cannot rest on hearsay.
United States v. McGehee, 672 F.3d 860, 876 (10th Cir. 2012): Used to establish forfeiture and the resulting plain-error review when the defendant fails to object to hearsay or assert confrontation rights at the revocation hearing.
United States v. Jones, 818 F.3d 1091, 1098 (10th Cir. 2016): Described the Rule 32.1 balancing test as governing whether hearsay may be used in revoking supervised release. Price did not trigger this framework because he did not assert the right to question adverse witnesses.
United States v. Hernandez, 104 F.4th 755, 767 (10th Cir. 2024): Provided the definition of when an error is “plain” (clear or obvious under current law). The panel relied on this to conclude no “plain” error occurred because there is no clearly established requirement for sua sponte Rule 32.1 balancing.
United States v. Body, 791 F. App'x 807, 809 (11th Cir. 2019): Discussed only to distinguish: unlike Price, that defendant preserved the hearsay/confrontation issue. The distinction highlighted how preservation affects both procedure (balancing required) and appellate review (plain error vs. preserved error).

B. Legal Reasoning

Burden and evidentiary sufficiency in revocation: The district court needed only a preponderance of the evidence to find a supervised release violation under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). The Tenth Circuit asked whether the district court’s fact findings were clearly erroneous—not whether the evidence proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Record support for “new crime” and “dangerous weapon”: The police report reflected (a) witness statements that Price used an object and (b) significant injuries (including a deep head gash and dislocated shoulder requiring ER care), supporting the inference that Price committed assault and did so with an object capable of causing serious injury—i.e., a “dangerous weapon” as found by the district court. The probation officer’s testimony, though derivative, also referenced conversations with an officer and a family member, adding corroboration.
Credibility determinations insulated on appeal: Price and his mother-in-law denied an object was used and denied seeing blood. The district court discredited them; the Tenth Circuit deferred under United States v. Rodebaugh.
Hearsay and confrontation in revocation—procedure matters: Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) provides an opportunity to question adverse witnesses unless “the interest of justice” does not require them. The Rule’s advisory note contemplates an on-the-record balancing of the releasee’s confrontation interest against the government’s good cause. The Tenth Circuit acknowledged the balancing test described in United States v. Jones, but held Price did not activate the issue because he never objected or asserted the right. Without a preserved claim, the court applied plain-error review and concluded it was not “plain” that the district court had to conduct the balancing test sua sponte.

C. Impact

Practical preservation rule for revocation hearings: The decision underscores that defendants who want Rule 32.1 confrontation protections must timely object to hearsay and request the adverse witness’s appearance. Otherwise, appellate review will likely be plain-error and difficult to satisfy.
Government reliance on police reports when unchallenged: While the opinion does not declare hearsay automatically sufficient, it confirms that unobjected-to police reports and probation officer testimony can supply adequate evidentiary support under the preponderance standard.
District court procedure: The panel’s statement that it has never required sua sponte Rule 32.1 balancing may encourage district courts to treat the balancing inquiry as party-driven—though careful courts may still choose to address reliability and confrontation interests to reduce appellate risk.
Limited precedential force but persuasive value: As an “Order and Judgment,” it is nonbinding except for law-of-the-case/res judicata/collateral estoppel, yet it may be cited for persuasive value within the Tenth Circuit, especially on preservation and plain-error framing.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Supervised release revocation: A post-prison monitoring term can be revoked if the court finds the person violated conditions (e.g., committing a new crime), sending the person back to prison.
Preponderance of the evidence: “More likely than not”—a lower standard than “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Hearsay: An out-of-court statement offered to prove what it asserts (e.g., a police report repeating witness statements). Revocation hearings allow more hearsay than trials, but Rule 32.1 can require confrontation balancing when the issue is raised.
Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) balancing: If a defendant insists on questioning an adverse witness, the court should weigh the defendant’s confrontation interest against the government’s reasons (good cause) for not producing the witness, often considering the hearsay’s reliability.
Plain error: A strict appellate standard applied when a party failed to object in the lower court; relief generally requires an error that is clear under existing law and affects the outcome.

5. Conclusion

United States v. Price affirms that supervised-release violations may be found on a preponderance standard using flexible evidentiary sources, including unobjected-to hearsay such as police reports. The opinion’s key procedural lesson is that Rule 32.1 confrontation protections are typically activated by timely objection and a request to question adverse witnesses. Absent that, the Tenth Circuit will review only for plain error and—at least on current law—will not deem it “plain” that district courts must conduct the Rule 32.1 balancing test sua sponte.