The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit addressed a procedural issue that affects thousands of federal defendants annually in *United States v. Miller* (10th Cir. 2026), ruling on whether district courts must personally invite defendants to speak during supervised release revocation hearings.
The case centers on Dominic Miller, whose supervised release was revoked by the district court, resulting in a 24-month prison sentence. The critical procedural issue arose when the court failed to personally invite Miller to speak before imposing his sentence, a practice known as allocution that allows defendants to address the court before sentencing.
Miller appealed the decision, arguing that district courts have an obligation to personally address defendants during supervised release revocation hearings and invite them to speak. This argument touches on fundamental due process rights and the procedural safeguards that must be afforded to defendants in federal criminal proceedings, even during post-conviction supervised release matters.
The case presents an unusual procedural posture. Miller acknowledged that plain-error review applies to his challenge, and under existing Tenth Circuit precedent, the appeals court would be required to affirm his sentence. Despite this acknowledgment, Miller specifically requested that the court affirm his sentence so that he could pursue en banc review by the full Tenth Circuit.
This strategic approach reflects the complexity of federal appellate procedure and Miller's belief that the current circuit precedent may be flawed. By seeking affirmance followed by en banc review, Miller aims to have the full circuit court reconsider whether defendants have an absolute right to allocution during supervised release revocation proceedings.
The right to allocution has deep roots in American criminal jurisprudence, traditionally viewed as an essential component of due process. During allocution, defendants can present mitigating factors, express remorse, explain circumstances, or provide information that might influence the court's sentencing decision. This right becomes particularly significant in supervised release revocation cases, where defendants face additional imprisonment for violations of their release conditions.
Supervised release revocation proceedings differ from initial criminal sentencing in several important ways. These hearings typically involve allegations that defendants violated specific conditions of their release, such as failing drug tests, missing appointments with probation officers, or committing new crimes. The burden of proof is lower than in criminal trials, and defendants have fewer procedural protections.
The question of whether allocution rights apply with equal force in revocation proceedings has created a circuit split among federal appeals courts. Some circuits have held that the right to speak is fundamental and must be personally extended by the judge, while others have taken a more flexible approach, allowing allocution through counsel or finding that explicit invitations are not always required.
The Tenth Circuit's handling of *Miller* appears to follow existing circuit precedent that limits defendants' allocution rights in supervised release contexts. The court's decision to proceed without oral argument suggests the panel viewed the legal question as settled under current precedent, despite Miller's constitutional arguments.
This case highlights broader tensions in federal supervised release practice. With hundreds of thousands of federal defendants on supervised release at any given time, procedural requirements for revocation hearings have significant practical implications for both courts and defendants. Requiring personal invitations to allocute could add time and complexity to already busy dockets, while failing to provide this opportunity may compromise defendants' due process rights.
The procedural history of Miller's original case dates back to 2014, when he was charged in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The decade-long timeline from initial charges to this appeals court decision illustrates the extended nature of federal criminal proceedings, particularly for defendants who violate supervised release conditions.
Miller's request for strategic affirmance followed by en banc review represents a calculated legal gamble. En banc review is discretionary and granted sparingly, typically reserved for cases involving questions of exceptional importance or conflicts with Supreme Court decisions. The full Tenth Circuit would need to find Miller's allocution argument sufficiently compelling to warrant reconsideration of established circuit precedent.
The outcome of this case could influence supervised release practice throughout the Tenth Circuit, which covers Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming. If Miller ultimately succeeds in obtaining en banc review and a favorable ruling, it could establish stronger procedural protections for defendants facing supervised release revocation.
For criminal defense attorneys, the case underscores the importance of preserving allocution objections and understanding the strategic implications of appellate timing. The decision also highlights how procedural rights that seem fundamental in initial criminal proceedings may receive different treatment in post-conviction contexts.
As Miller's case potentially moves toward en banc consideration, it joins a broader national conversation about criminal justice reform and defendants' rights in an era of mass supervision. The resolution of his allocution claim could influence not only Tenth Circuit practice but also contribute to eventual Supreme Court consideration of these important procedural questions.