Appellate Case: 25-6133 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 04/07/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 7, 2026 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 25-6133 (D.C. No. 5:22-CR-00425-J-1) EDWARD TERRELL GLAZE, (W.D. Okla.)
Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________
Before TYMKOVICH, PHILLIPS, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges. _________________________________
Edward Terrell Glaze appeals the district court’s imposition of a 10-
month term of imprisonment following the revocation of his term of
supervised release. On appeal, Glaze argues that the district court’s
*After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 34(f); Tenth Circuit Rule 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and Tenth Circuit Rule 32.1. Appellate Case: 25-6133 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 04/07/2026 Page: 2
sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Exercising
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), we affirm.
I
In 2023, the district court sentenced Glaze to 37 months of
imprisonment and three years of supervised release after he pleaded guilty
to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
His term of supervision began on March 1, 2025.
On April 23, 2025, Glaze’s probation officer filed a revocation petition
with the district court, alleging, among other things, that Glaze tested
positive for marijuana use on three separate occasions in violation of a
condition of supervision. On May 19, 2025, the probation officer filed an
amended petition, further alleging that Glaze had failed to submit urine
samples and failed to attend his substance abuse treatment group. On May
23, 2025, the probation officer filed a violation report, noting Glaze’s highest
grade of violation was C and his criminal history category was VI. The
violation report calculated the advisory guideline range to be between 8-
and 14-months of imprisonment and noted that revocation was mandatory
under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g)(4) because Glaze had tested positive for illegal
controlled substances more than three times over a one-year period. In that
report, probation recommended an 8-month sentence.
2 Appellate Case: 25-6133 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 04/07/2026 Page: 3
On May 27, 2025, Glaze appeared before the district court for his
revocation hearing. Glaze stipulated to the violations in the amended
petition. After hearing from Glaze, his counsel, and the Government, the
district court continued the revocation hearing for 62 days to provide Glaze
with an opportunity to conform his conduct to the conditions of his
supervision. The district court noted that it would determine the
appropriate punishment for his violations after evaluating his compliance
during the 62-day period.
A few days prior to the date set for the continued revocation hearing,
the probation officer filed a second amended petition, further alleging that
Glaze had tested positive for marijuana use three additional times following
his initial revocation hearing and had admitted to using marijuana multiple
times per week. On July 29, 2025, an amended violation report was filed,
providing the same guideline range and again noting that revocation was
mandatory. But it changed probation’s recommended sentence from 8
months to 10 months. On July 31, 2025, Glaze failed to appear at the
revocation hearing and the district court issued a bench warrant for his
arrest. Glaze was arrested and detained until his final revocation hearing
on August 5, 2025.
At the final revocation hearing, Glaze stipulated to the additional
violations in the second amended petition. Glaze requested that he be
3 Appellate Case: 25-6133 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 04/07/2026 Page: 4
permitted to continue on supervision or at least to be imprisoned only on
the weekends. For mitigating circumstances, he explained that a term of
imprisonment could cause him to lose his employment, that his family relied
on him for support, and that he had been using marijuana for medical
reasons. The district court engaged with Glaze’s arguments but emphasized
the need to “enforce the law . . . in a way that is consistent” and to fashion
a sentence that would “help [] Glaze have some course correction”
considering the circumstances of Glaze’s multiple and continued violations
of the conditions of his supervision. R. III at 44–45, 60.
After entertaining arguments from Glaze, his counsel, and the
Government, the district court calculated that Glaze’s guideline range was
8- to 14-months, expressly “considered the factors in 18 U.S.C. Section 3553
and the policy statements in Chapter 7 of the sentencing guidelines,” and
sentenced Glaze to a within-guideline sentence of 10 months’ imprisonment
to be followed by a term of 24 months of supervised release. R. III at 56.
When asked by the district court if there was any reason why the sentence
imposed was improper, Glaze’s counsel answered, “It is not improper.” Id.
at 57. This appeal timely followed.
II
Glaze argues on appeal that his sentence was procedurally
unreasonable because the district court “did not discuss how the different
4 Appellate Case: 25-6133 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 04/07/2026 Page: 5
Section 3553(a) factors weighed in its analysis.” Op. Br. at 19. He also
argues that his sentence was substantively unreasonable because the
district court “failed to weigh the § 3553(a) factors” and failed to consider if
“the availability of appropriate substance abuse programs warranted an
exception” to mandatory revocation under the policy statements in Chapter
7 of the sentencing guidelines. Id. at 16. Glaze asks us to vacate his sentence
and remand for resentencing so the district court can “justify [its] sentence.”
Id. at 19–20.
We review Glaze’s challenge to the procedural reasonableness of his
sentence for plain error because he did not contemporaneously object to the
district court’s explanation of its sentence. See United States v. Rocha, 145
F.4th 1247, 1261 (10th Cir. 2025); United States v. Nunez-Carranza, 83
F.4th 1213, 1218 (10th Cir. 2023).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Appellate Case: 25-6133 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 04/07/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 7, 2026 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 25-6133 (D.C. No. 5:22-CR-00425-J-1) EDWARD TERRELL GLAZE, (W.D. Okla.)
Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________
Before TYMKOVICH, PHILLIPS, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges. _________________________________
Edward Terrell Glaze appeals the district court’s imposition of a 10-
month term of imprisonment following the revocation of his term of
supervised release. On appeal, Glaze argues that the district court’s
*After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 34(f); Tenth Circuit Rule 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and Tenth Circuit Rule 32.1. Appellate Case: 25-6133 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 04/07/2026 Page: 2
sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Exercising
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), we affirm.
I
In 2023, the district court sentenced Glaze to 37 months of
imprisonment and three years of supervised release after he pleaded guilty
to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
His term of supervision began on March 1, 2025.
On April 23, 2025, Glaze’s probation officer filed a revocation petition
with the district court, alleging, among other things, that Glaze tested
positive for marijuana use on three separate occasions in violation of a
condition of supervision. On May 19, 2025, the probation officer filed an
amended petition, further alleging that Glaze had failed to submit urine
samples and failed to attend his substance abuse treatment group. On May
23, 2025, the probation officer filed a violation report, noting Glaze’s highest
grade of violation was C and his criminal history category was VI. The
violation report calculated the advisory guideline range to be between 8-
and 14-months of imprisonment and noted that revocation was mandatory
under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g)(4) because Glaze had tested positive for illegal
controlled substances more than three times over a one-year period. In that
report, probation recommended an 8-month sentence.
2 Appellate Case: 25-6133 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 04/07/2026 Page: 3
On May 27, 2025, Glaze appeared before the district court for his
revocation hearing. Glaze stipulated to the violations in the amended
petition. After hearing from Glaze, his counsel, and the Government, the
district court continued the revocation hearing for 62 days to provide Glaze
with an opportunity to conform his conduct to the conditions of his
supervision. The district court noted that it would determine the
appropriate punishment for his violations after evaluating his compliance
during the 62-day period.
A few days prior to the date set for the continued revocation hearing,
the probation officer filed a second amended petition, further alleging that
Glaze had tested positive for marijuana use three additional times following
his initial revocation hearing and had admitted to using marijuana multiple
times per week. On July 29, 2025, an amended violation report was filed,
providing the same guideline range and again noting that revocation was
mandatory. But it changed probation’s recommended sentence from 8
months to 10 months. On July 31, 2025, Glaze failed to appear at the
revocation hearing and the district court issued a bench warrant for his
arrest. Glaze was arrested and detained until his final revocation hearing
on August 5, 2025.
At the final revocation hearing, Glaze stipulated to the additional
violations in the second amended petition. Glaze requested that he be
3 Appellate Case: 25-6133 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 04/07/2026 Page: 4
permitted to continue on supervision or at least to be imprisoned only on
the weekends. For mitigating circumstances, he explained that a term of
imprisonment could cause him to lose his employment, that his family relied
on him for support, and that he had been using marijuana for medical
reasons. The district court engaged with Glaze’s arguments but emphasized
the need to “enforce the law . . . in a way that is consistent” and to fashion
a sentence that would “help [] Glaze have some course correction”
considering the circumstances of Glaze’s multiple and continued violations
of the conditions of his supervision. R. III at 44–45, 60.
After entertaining arguments from Glaze, his counsel, and the
Government, the district court calculated that Glaze’s guideline range was
8- to 14-months, expressly “considered the factors in 18 U.S.C. Section 3553
and the policy statements in Chapter 7 of the sentencing guidelines,” and
sentenced Glaze to a within-guideline sentence of 10 months’ imprisonment
to be followed by a term of 24 months of supervised release. R. III at 56.
When asked by the district court if there was any reason why the sentence
imposed was improper, Glaze’s counsel answered, “It is not improper.” Id.
at 57. This appeal timely followed.
II
Glaze argues on appeal that his sentence was procedurally
unreasonable because the district court “did not discuss how the different
4 Appellate Case: 25-6133 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 04/07/2026 Page: 5
Section 3553(a) factors weighed in its analysis.” Op. Br. at 19. He also
argues that his sentence was substantively unreasonable because the
district court “failed to weigh the § 3553(a) factors” and failed to consider if
“the availability of appropriate substance abuse programs warranted an
exception” to mandatory revocation under the policy statements in Chapter
7 of the sentencing guidelines. Id. at 16. Glaze asks us to vacate his sentence
and remand for resentencing so the district court can “justify [its] sentence.”
Id. at 19–20.
We review Glaze’s challenge to the procedural reasonableness of his
sentence for plain error because he did not contemporaneously object to the
district court’s explanation of its sentence. See United States v. Rocha, 145
F.4th 1247, 1261 (10th Cir. 2025); United States v. Nunez-Carranza, 83
F.4th 1213, 1218 (10th Cir. 2023). Thus, Glaze must show “1) error 2) that
was plain, and 3) that affected his substantial rights.” Nunez-Carranza, 83
F.4th at 1218. If he does so, we have discretion to grant relief where 4) “the
error had a serious effect on ‘the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of
judicial proceedings.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Leib, 57 F.4th 1122,
1128 (10th Cir. 2023)). We review Glaze’s challenge to the substantive
reasonableness of his sentence for abuse of discretion. See United States v.
Cookson, 922 F.3d 1079, 1090 (10th Cir. 2019). A sentence is presumptively
reasonable if “the district court properly considers the relevant Guidelines
5 Appellate Case: 25-6133 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 04/07/2026 Page: 6
range and sentences the defendant within that range.” United States v.
Kristl, 437 F.3d 1050, 1055 (10th Cir. 2006).
Here, Glaze has not shown that the district court committed
procedural or substantive error. Procedurally, the district court
“entertained” Glaze’s arguments for continued supervision, expressly
considered the Section 3553(a) factors and the policy statements in Chapter
7 of the sentencing guidelines, and decided that a within-guideline sentence
was appropriate in light of the information before it. Nunez-Carranza, 83
F.4th at 1222. The district court’s discussion with the parties considered
“facts and circumstances” relevant to the 3553(a) factors, including
promotion of respect for the law and deterrence. Id. at 1223. It therefore
“met its obligation of adequately explaining why it imposed” the sentence
that it did. Id. at 1223.
For the same reasons, Glaze has not overcome the presumption that
his within-guideline sentence was substantively reasonable. The district
court was entitled to weigh all the § 3553(a) factors as it saw fit given the
circumstances of Glaze’s violations. United States v. Doty, 150 F.4th 1351,
1356 (10th Cir. 2025). We will not “reweigh the district court’s balancing of
the § 3553(a) factors” where, as here, it “reached a logical conclusion” and
“detailed its reasoning.” United States v. Lawless, 979 F.3d 849, 856 (10th
Cir. 2020.)
6 Appellate Case: 25-6133 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 04/07/2026 Page: 7
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Richard E.N. Federico Circuit Judge