United States v. Cunningham, 883 F.3d 690

Cunningham and two accomplices burglarized a private collection in Rockton, IL, stealing more than 25 firearms (including semiautomatics and an AR-15) and ammunition; some weapons were recovered, many remained missing.
He pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess stolen firearms (18 U.S.C. § 371 & § 922(j)), possession of stolen firearms (§ 922(j)), and felon-in-possession (§ 922(g)(1)).
The PSR applied multiple enhancements (large-capacity capable firearm, >25 firearms, stolen and trafficked firearms, use of a firearm in connection with another felony), yielding total offense level 34 and criminal-history category IV, producing a guideline range of 210–262 months; the Government and court settled on offense level 33 producing a guideline range of 188–235 months.
Defense submitted extensive written character letters and sought to call live witnesses (wife, father-in-law, pastor); the district court limited live testimony, allowed two to three brief witnesses, and repeatedly urged brevity.
The district court sentenced Cunningham to consecutive terms totaling 188 months (the low end of the guideline range), explaining it weighed § 3553(a) factors, his significant criminal history, the seriousness and community danger of the offense, and his conduct while on pretrial release.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(4)(A)(ii) requires district courts to permit live character witnesses at sentencing	Rule's phrase “present any information” includes the right to present witness testimony; limiting witnesses violated Rule 32	Rule guarantees personal allocution and presentation of information by the defendant, not an unfettered right to call live witnesses; courts may control evidence presentation	No violation: Rule 32 does not entitle defendants to a right to call character witnesses; district court did not abuse discretion in limiting testimony
Whether the 188-month sentence is substantively unreasonable under § 3553(a)	Court failed to afford sufficient weight to mitigation (rehabilitation on release, family needs, employment opportunity) meriting a downward variance	Sentence at the low end of the guidelines is appropriate given serious offense, unrecovered weapons, aggravated criminal history, and court explicitly considered § 3553(a) factors	Affirmed: within-guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable; district court adequately weighed § 3553(a) factors and did not abuse discretion

United States v. Luepke, 495 F.3d 443 (7th Cir. 2007) (discusses allocution and defendant’s personal right to speak at sentencing)
Green v. United States, 365 U.S. 301 (U.S. 1961) (historic background of allocution; defendant’s personal right to speak before sentence)
United States v. Jones, 643 F.3d 275 (8th Cir. 2011) (Rule 32 does not obligate courts to permit character witnesses at sentencing)
United States v. Cruzado-Laureano, 527 F.3d 231 (1st Cir. 2008) (Rule 32 requires opportunity to speak but does not grant right to call witnesses)
United States v. Claudio, 44 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 1995) (no automatic right to present live testimony at sentencing)
United States v. Jackson, 700 F.2d 181 (5th Cir. 1983) (allocution does not require allowing others to testify for defendant at sentencing)
United States v. Garcia-Segura, 717 F.3d 566 (7th Cir. 2013) (procedural challenge avoided where district court confirmed it had addressed defendant’s principal arguments)
United States v. Matthews, 701 F.3d 1199 (7th Cir. 2012) (within-guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable)