United States v. Craig, 794 F.3d 1234

Background

David Craig was convicted of possessing a stolen firearm, sentenced to 30 months and three years supervised release; after release he stipulated to violations at a revocation hearing.
At the August 15, 2014 revocation hearing the district court announced proposed findings and a tentative 14‑month revocation sentence (within Guidelines); invited counsel to object or speak.
Craig’s counsel said Craig understood the proposed sentence and asked for a two‑week continuance to pursue drug treatment; the government did not object and the court recessed to consider treatment funding.
When the hearing resumed the court announced the 14‑month sentence and one year supervised release; the court never personally asked Craig if he wished to allocute.
Craig did not object at the hearing that he was not personally addressed; on appeal he argued the district court denied his Rule 32.1 allocution right and that review should be de novo (objecting was futile).
The Tenth Circuit applied the plain‑error standard (because Craig did not object) and affirmed, finding no plain error: Rule 32.1’s requirement to personally address a defendant is not settled Tenth Circuit or Supreme Court law, and Craig failed to show prejudice or harm to the proceedings’ integrity.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Craig)	Defendant's Argument (Government/District Court)	Held
Whether the district court denied Craig his Rule 32.1 allocution right by not personally asking him to speak	Rule 32.1 requires the court to personally address the defendant and offer allocution; failing to do so was error	Rule 32.1 does not clearly require a personal invitation; counsel was invited to speak and Craig’s counsel declined allocution for Craig	No plain error: absence of a clear, settled rule that Rule 32.1 requires personal address, and no showing of prejudice
Standard of review for unobjected‑to Rule 32.1 violations	Review should be de novo because allocution is fundamental and Rausch should be revisited	Tenth Circuit precedent (Rausch) requires plain‑error review for unobjected procedural defects at revocation hearings	Plain‑error review applies; Craig failed to satisfy its four prongs
Whether an objection would have been futile thus excusing failure to preserve the claim	The hearing sequence made an objection futile, so failure to object should not bar de novo review	Counsel had opportunities to request personal allocution both before and after recess; futility not shown	Futility not shown; counsel could have requested allocution and interrupting to object is appropriate
Whether any error affected substantial rights or the integrity of proceedings	Craig argues denial affected fairness and his chance to mitigate	Court notes counsel said Craig understood and would not challenge the sentence; Craig did not state what he would have said	No effect on substantial rights or integrity; Craig did not show what mitigatory statement he would have made

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Rausch, 638 F.3d 1296 (10th Cir. 2011) (adopts plain‑error review when defendant fails to object to Rule 32.1 procedures)
United States v. Landeros‑Lopez, 615 F.3d 1260 (10th Cir. 2010) (addresses allocution requirements under Rule 32 at original sentencing)
United States v. Story, 635 F.3d 1241 (10th Cir. 2011) (defines when an error is "plain" under Circuit and Supreme Court precedent)
United States v. Nichols, 775 F.3d 1225 (10th Cir. 2014) (panels generally may not overrule prior panel precedent)
United States v. Paladino, 769 F.3d 197 (3d Cir. 2014) (holds Rule 32.1 requires court to personally address defendant)
United States v. Carruth, 528 F.3d 845 (11th Cir. 2008) (concludes Rule 32.1 requires personal invitation to allocute)
United States v. Pitre, 504 F.3d 657 (7th Cir. 2007) (finds allocution right under Rule 32.1 includes personal address)
United States v. Robertson, 537 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2008) (criticizes some holdings that read a personal‑address requirement into Rule 32.1)