United States v. John Daniels
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14043
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- Daniels was sentenced in 1991 to 20 years in federal prison and 10 years of supervised release for possession with intent to distribute cocaine.
- His supervised release began in June 2008 after serving over 17 years of his sentence.
- In February 2013, the U.S. Probation Office filed a petition to revoke based on four California-law allegations and a fifth court-ordered-recovery program failure.
- At an July 2013 evidentiary hearing, the district court found allegations (3) and (4) proven by clear and convincing evidence and imposed a 40-month sentence with 20 months of supervised release, under the same terms.
- Daniels did not ask to speak before sentencing, and the district court did not affirmatively invite him to allocute.
- Daniels appealed, challenging the district court’s failure to personally inform him of the right to allocute before imposing the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 32.1 allocution right before post-revocation sentence | Daniels: failure to personally invite allocution violated Rule 32.1(b)(2)(E). | Government: allocution not required as a formal personal invitation; defense counsel discussed mitigation. | Rule 32.1(b)(2)(E) requires personal invitation to allocute; error. |
| Standard of review for allocution error | Daniels: plain error applies if not objected below. | Government: argue for harmless or different standard. | Court assumes plain-error review for purposes of discussion. |
| Remedy for allocution violation | Allocation rights were denied, prejudicing sentencing. | Remand unnecessary if no chance of lower sentence. | Vacate and remand for resentencing to address allocution issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Carper, 24 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 1994) (allocution right requires personal addressing before sentencing in revocation)
- United States v. Whitlock, 639 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011) (codifies right to allocution at revocation sentencing)
- United States v. Gonzalez, 529 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2008) (allocution rights apply to revocation sentencing)
- United States v. Carruth, 528 F.3d 845 (11th Cir. 2008) (right to allocute not substantively different from Rule 32)
- United States v. Pitre, 504 F.3d 657 (7th Cir. 2007) (Rule 32.1 requires district court to ask defendant to speak before reimprisonment)
- United States v. Gunning, 401 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2005) (harmless error analysis not applicable to plain-error review in allocution)
- Castillo-Marin v. United States, 684 F.3d 914 (9th Cir. 2012) (plain-error standard for Rule 32.1 allocution violation; substantial rights)
- United States v. Joseph, 716 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 2013) (prejudice when sentence could have been shorter)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (prejudice and effect on proceedings required for plain error)
- United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258 (2010) (supreme court on plain-error standard)
- United States v. Leonard, 483 F.3d 635 (9th Cir. 2007) (sentencing procedures for revocation governed by Rule 32.1)