Appellate Case: 25-5144 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 05/05/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT May 5, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. Nos. 25-5144 & 25-5146 (D.C. Nos. 4:24-CR-00254-GKF-1 & ANTHONY STEVEN PRICE, 4:18-CR-00020-GKF-1) (N.D. Okla.) Defendant - Appellant.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________
Before McHUGH, BALDOCK, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. _________________________________
Anthony Steven Price appeals the revocation of his supervised release, arguing
the district court erred in finding that he had violated the terms of his supervised
release conditions by committing a new crime and possessing a dangerous weapon.
Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
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 Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. Appellate Case: 25-5144 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 05/05/2026 Page: 2
I. Background
In 2018, Mr. Price pleaded guilty to Hobbs Act robbery and being a felon in
possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to 87 months in prison and three years of
supervised release. While serving that sentence, he fled from custody and later
pleaded guilty to an escape charge. He was then sentenced to ten months in prison,
to run concurrently with his original sentence, followed by three years of supervised
release. He was released from federal custody in May 2025 upon the completion of
his sentence.
On July 20, 2025, Mr. Price was at the home of his mother-in-law in
Muskogee, Oklahoma. According to a police report, Mr. Price’s wife Tiffany began
fighting with her daughter’s boyfriend. Mr. Price then entered the room with an
object in his hand and began striking the boyfriend repeatedly. The boyfriend told
police he did not know what object Mr. Price had used to hit him, but Tiffany’s
daughter said it was a small novelty baseball bat. The officer at the scene reported
the boyfriend had blood on his face, arms, and shirt, and that he suffered a dislocated
shoulder and a deep gash on his head for which he received treatment at an
emergency room.
The daughter called the police, and Tiffany was arrested at the scene.
Mr. Price fled before police arrived but was arrested two days later. He was later
charged with assault and battery with a dangerous weapon.
A few days after the incident, Mr. Price’s probation officer, Bethany
Blackmon, prepared petitions seeking to revoke Mr. Price’s supervised release in
both the underlying robbery case and the escape case. The petitions alleged eight
2 Appellate Case: 25-5144 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 05/05/2026 Page: 3
violations, and Mr. Price stipulated to having committed three of them. On the
remaining alleged violations, including committing another crime and possessing a
dangerous weapon, the district court received into evidence the police report
concerning the July 20 incident and heard testimony from three witnesses.
Officer Blackmon testified about the assault, relying on the police report and
conversations she had with one of the charging officers and a member of Tiffany’s
family who was at the scene. She acknowledged there was some uncertainty about
the object Mr. Price had in his hand—the family member she spoke with thought it
was brass knuckles—but whatever it was, she noted it was enough to cause a gash in
the victim’s head, requiring an emergency room visit. Mr. Price did not object to
Officer Blackmon’s testimony or the police report.
Mr. Price offered his own testimony as well as the testimony of his mother-in-
law. While Mr. Price admitted to fighting, he denied he struck the boyfriend with
anything other than his fists. His mother-in-law also testified she saw no object in
Mr. Price’s hand. Both denied seeing any blood on the boyfriend after the fight.
The district court found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Mr. Price
had committed all the contested violations. It revoked Mr. Price’s terms of
supervised release and sentenced him to 18 months in prison relating to the
underlying robbery conviction and 21 months in prison relating to the escape
conviction, to be served concurrently. 1 As to the assault allegations, the district court
1 Mr. Price separately appealed the revocation of supervised release in each case (Nos. 25-5144 and 25-5146). The court has consolidated the appeals for all procedural purposes. 3 Appellate Case: 25-5144 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 05/05/2026 Page: 4
credited the police report and found (1) that Mr. Price had committed an assault, and
(2) relatedly, was in possession of a dangerous weapon because the object he used to
beat the victim caused a deep gash to the victim’s head. On appeal, Mr. Price seeks
to challenge only these two findings.
II. Discussion
To revoke a term of supervised release, the district court must find by a
preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of his release.
18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). We review a district court’s decision to revoke a term of
supervised release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Disney, 253 F.3d 1211,
1213 (10th Cir. 2001). “A district court abuses its discretion when it relies on an
incorrect conclusion of law or a clearly erroneous finding of fact.” United States v.
Battle, 706 F.3d 1313, 1317 (10th Cir. 2013). “Factual findings are clearly erroneous
only if they are without factual support in the record or if this court, considering all
the evidence, is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
made.” United States v. Cortes-Gomez, 926 F.3d 699, 708 (10th Cir. 2019).
Mr. Price argues there was insufficient evidence that he committed the crime
of assault and battery and possessed a dangerous weapon. We disagree. The
question is whether the district court’s findings were “without factual support in the
record,” id., and it is indisputable that its findings were supported by the police
report. In addition, Officer Blackmon’s testimony was based not only on the police
report, but also on a conversation with one of the charging officers and another
family member who was at the scene. Although Mr. Price testified he had nothing in
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Appellate Case: 25-5144 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 05/05/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT May 5, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. Nos. 25-5144 & 25-5146 (D.C. Nos. 4:24-CR-00254-GKF-1 & ANTHONY STEVEN PRICE, 4:18-CR-00020-GKF-1) (N.D. Okla.) Defendant - Appellant.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________
Before McHUGH, BALDOCK, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. _________________________________
Anthony Steven Price appeals the revocation of his supervised release, arguing
the district court erred in finding that he had violated the terms of his supervised
release conditions by committing a new crime and possessing a dangerous weapon.
Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
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 Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 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 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. Appellate Case: 25-5144 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 05/05/2026 Page: 2
I. Background
In 2018, Mr. Price pleaded guilty to Hobbs Act robbery and being a felon in
possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to 87 months in prison and three years of
supervised release. While serving that sentence, he fled from custody and later
pleaded guilty to an escape charge. He was then sentenced to ten months in prison,
to run concurrently with his original sentence, followed by three years of supervised
release. He was released from federal custody in May 2025 upon the completion of
his sentence.
On July 20, 2025, Mr. Price was at the home of his mother-in-law in
Muskogee, Oklahoma. According to a police report, Mr. Price’s wife Tiffany began
fighting with her daughter’s boyfriend. Mr. Price then entered the room with an
object in his hand and began striking the boyfriend repeatedly. The boyfriend told
police he did not know what object Mr. Price had used to hit him, but Tiffany’s
daughter said it was a small novelty baseball bat. The officer at the scene reported
the boyfriend had blood on his face, arms, and shirt, and that he suffered a dislocated
shoulder and a deep gash on his head for which he received treatment at an
emergency room.
The daughter called the police, and Tiffany was arrested at the scene.
Mr. Price fled before police arrived but was arrested two days later. He was later
charged with assault and battery with a dangerous weapon.
A few days after the incident, Mr. Price’s probation officer, Bethany
Blackmon, prepared petitions seeking to revoke Mr. Price’s supervised release in
both the underlying robbery case and the escape case. The petitions alleged eight
2 Appellate Case: 25-5144 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 05/05/2026 Page: 3
violations, and Mr. Price stipulated to having committed three of them. On the
remaining alleged violations, including committing another crime and possessing a
dangerous weapon, the district court received into evidence the police report
concerning the July 20 incident and heard testimony from three witnesses.
Officer Blackmon testified about the assault, relying on the police report and
conversations she had with one of the charging officers and a member of Tiffany’s
family who was at the scene. She acknowledged there was some uncertainty about
the object Mr. Price had in his hand—the family member she spoke with thought it
was brass knuckles—but whatever it was, she noted it was enough to cause a gash in
the victim’s head, requiring an emergency room visit. Mr. Price did not object to
Officer Blackmon’s testimony or the police report.
Mr. Price offered his own testimony as well as the testimony of his mother-in-
law. While Mr. Price admitted to fighting, he denied he struck the boyfriend with
anything other than his fists. His mother-in-law also testified she saw no object in
Mr. Price’s hand. Both denied seeing any blood on the boyfriend after the fight.
The district court found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Mr. Price
had committed all the contested violations. It revoked Mr. Price’s terms of
supervised release and sentenced him to 18 months in prison relating to the
underlying robbery conviction and 21 months in prison relating to the escape
conviction, to be served concurrently. 1 As to the assault allegations, the district court
1 Mr. Price separately appealed the revocation of supervised release in each case (Nos. 25-5144 and 25-5146). The court has consolidated the appeals for all procedural purposes. 3 Appellate Case: 25-5144 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 05/05/2026 Page: 4
credited the police report and found (1) that Mr. Price had committed an assault, and
(2) relatedly, was in possession of a dangerous weapon because the object he used to
beat the victim caused a deep gash to the victim’s head. On appeal, Mr. Price seeks
to challenge only these two findings.
II. Discussion
To revoke a term of supervised release, the district court must find by a
preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of his release.
18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). We review a district court’s decision to revoke a term of
supervised release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Disney, 253 F.3d 1211,
1213 (10th Cir. 2001). “A district court abuses its discretion when it relies on an
incorrect conclusion of law or a clearly erroneous finding of fact.” United States v.
Battle, 706 F.3d 1313, 1317 (10th Cir. 2013). “Factual findings are clearly erroneous
only if they are without factual support in the record or if this court, considering all
the evidence, is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
made.” United States v. Cortes-Gomez, 926 F.3d 699, 708 (10th Cir. 2019).
Mr. Price argues there was insufficient evidence that he committed the crime
of assault and battery and possessed a dangerous weapon. We disagree. The
question is whether the district court’s findings were “without factual support in the
record,” id., and it is indisputable that its findings were supported by the police
report. In addition, Officer Blackmon’s testimony was based not only on the police
report, but also on a conversation with one of the charging officers and another
family member who was at the scene. Although Mr. Price testified he had nothing in
his hand as he punched the victim, and both he and his mother-in-law testified they
4 Appellate Case: 25-5144 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 05/05/2026 Page: 5
saw no blood on the victim after the incident, the district court determined their
testimony lacked credibility. It is “within the district court’s province as the
fact-finder” to determine witness credibility. United States v. Rodebaugh, 798 F.3d
1281, 1290 (10th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). We discern no error
in the district court’s weighing of the evidence.
Notwithstanding that there was evidence to support the district court’s
findings, Mr. Price argues that the revocation cannot be based on hearsay evidence
alone. We reject this argument as well. First, “[a]t revocation hearings courts have
the flexibility to consider evidence including letters, affidavits, and other material
that would not be admissible in an adversary criminal trial.” United States v.
Williams, 106 F.4th 1040, 1045 (10th Cir. 2024) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Second, the argument is subject to a plain error analysis because Mr. Price did
not object to the hearsay nature of the evidence or assert his right to confront the
declarants. 2 See United States v. McGehee, 672 F.3d 860, 876 (10th Cir. 2012).
Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that at a final
revocation hearing, a person “is entitled to . . . an opportunity to . . . question any
adverse witness unless the court determines that the interest of justice does not
require the witness to appear.” The advisory committee’s notes further explain that
Rule 32.1 requires the court to “apply a balancing test at the hearing itself when
considering the releasee’s asserted right to cross-examine adverse witnesses” and
2 The one case Mr. Price cited in support of his argument—an unpublished decision of the Eleventh Circuit—is distinguishable because unlike Mr. Price, the defendant in that case preserved the issue. United States v. Body, 791 F. App’x 807, 809 (11th Cir. 2019). 5 Appellate Case: 25-5144 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 05/05/2026 Page: 6
“balance the person’s interest in the constitutionally guaranteed right to confrontation
against the government’s good cause for denying it.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1 advisory
committee’s note to 2002 amendments. This balancing test “governs whether
hearsay evidence may be used to revoke supervised release.” United States v. Jones,
818 F.3d 1091, 1098 (10th Cir. 2016). Mr. Price, however, did not invoke Rule 32.1
or otherwise assert the right to cross-examine the hearsay declarants, and this court
has never held that a district court must sua sponte conduct a Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C)
balancing test before accepting hearsay statements. Thus, even if the district court
erred, it was not plain. See United States v. Hernandez, 104 F.4th 755, 767
(10th Cir. 2024) (an error is plain if it “is clear or obvious under current law”).
III. Conclusion
We affirm the judgment of the district court revoking supervised release in
both the underlying robbery conviction and the escape conviction.
Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock Circuit Judge