United States v. Angel Perez, 460 F. App'x 294

Perez was convicted of illegal reentry after deportation and began a one-year term of supervised release.
A revocation petition alleged five violations: three new crimes (controlled-substance possession, illegal reentry after deportation, transporting undocumented aliens) and two violations of release conditions (not to illegally return, and failing to report).
The district court treated the first three allegations as Grade B and the last two as Grade C violations, with a statutory maximum of 12 months for revocation.
Perez pleaded true to the two alleged violations regarding not returning and failing to report, but not true to the first three allegations.
At the revocation hearing, the court sentenced Perez to 12 months imprisonment, concluding the sentence was within the statutory maximum and noting an upward departure based on ongoing criminal activity.
On appeal, Perez argues procedural error (denial of allocution, reliance on petition-based allegations, and insufficient explanation) and substantive reasonableness arguments; the court vacates and remands for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Allocution was denied at sentencing	Perez asserts he was not afforded a meaningful opportunity to allocute.	Court contends it did solicit comments but failed to clearly convey the right to speak on any topic.	Vacate and remand for resentencing due to plain-error allocution violation.
Reliance on petition allegations for factual basis	Perez argues the sentence rested on unproven petition allegations rather than admitted facts.	Court relied on the petition’s information and evidence to justify upward departure.	Remand required to clarify which violations underlie the sentence and whether proper evidence supported them.
Sentence explanation adequate	Inadequate reasoning for the upward departure and sentence length.	Court provided reasons tied to criminal history and petition content.	Not reached on appeal due to vacatur; issue left for remand if necessary.

United States v. Echegollen–Barrueta, 195 F.3d 786 (5th Cir. 1999) (allocution rights and factual basis at sentencing; Rule 32.1/32 distinction)
United States v. Magwood, 445 F.3d 826 (5th Cir. 2006) (presumed prejudice for plain-error when bottom of range not reached; need mitigation info)
United States v. Avila-Cortez, 582 F.3d 602 (5th Cir. 2009) (allocution analysis when prior opportunity exists; discretion to correct error)
United States v. Reyna, 358 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2004) (plain-error standard for allocution denial; not inherently a fundamental defect)
United States v. Hernandez-Martinez, 485 F.3d 270 (5th Cir. 2007) (recognizes Booker-era sentencing standards in revocation context)