United States v. Jose Figueroa-Coello, 920 F.3d 260

Background

Defendant Jose Santos Figueroa-Coello pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. §1326; PSR placed his Guidelines range at 21–27 months.
At sentencing, defense counsel spoke; the district court never directly asked or permitted Jose to allocute before imposing sentence.
Government advocated the top-of-range 27 months based on a prior aggravated robbery; the court sentenced Jose to 27 months and three years supervised release.
Jose did not object at sentencing and appealed, arguing the court plainly erred by denying his right to allocution under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(4)(A)(ii).
The Fifth Circuit applied plain-error review under Puckett and found the first three prongs (rule deviation, clear/obvious, substantial rights) satisfied because the court failed to personally address Jose and imposed the top-of-range sentence.
The panel remanded for resentencing, concluding that Jose’s proffered allocution (remorse, alcohol-abuse treatment plan, intent to return to Honduras, family obligations including an ailing mother) provided sufficient specific mitigating information that could have affected the sentence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of allocution at sentencing was plain error requiring remand	Figueroa-Coello: court failed to personally address him and denied his right to speak; this likely affected his sentence	Government: counsel had spoken; defendant’s proffered allocution was not specific enough or would not have changed the court’s view given his criminal history	Court: Plain error found; first three Puckett prongs met and remand warranted under prong four because allocution offered specific mitigating details that could have led to a lower sentence
Whether prior opportunity to allocute or counsel’s statements cure the error	Figueroa-Coello: no prior opportunity existed; counsel’s remarks did not capture defendant’s personal statements	Government: counsel’s allocution covered the same facts; prior statements suffice	Court: No prior allocution; counsel’s statements were insufficient substitute for defendant’s own allocution
Whether proffered allocution was sufficiently specific to show prejudice	Figueroa-Coello: would have described family obligations, Alzheimer’s-diagnosed mother, sobriety plan, remorse, and plans to return to Honduras	Government: some facts contradicted PSR; proffer lacks details and does not rebut violent prior offense basis for high sentence	Court: Some PSR contradictions (mother’s health) weakened that point, but statements about sobriety and concrete plans to return were sufficiently specific to justify remand
Whether remand is required as a matter of discretion under Puckett prong four	Figueroa-Coello: remand needed to preserve fairness and allow his allocution to be considered	Government: discretion should be withheld because error would not have changed outcome	Court: Exercised discretion to remand, finding error affected fairness, integrity, and reputation of proceedings

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Reyna, 358 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2004) (plain-error allocution framework and when remand may be declined)
United States v. Magwood, 445 F.3d 826 (5th Cir. 2006) (personal, direct inquiry required for allocution)
United States v. Palacios, 844 F.3d 527 (5th Cir. 2016) (allocution requires opportunity to speak freely; specificity can warrant remand)
United States v. Chavez-Perez, 844 F.3d 540 (5th Cir. 2016) (insufficiently specific proffer of allocution may not warrant remand)
United States v. Avila-Cortez, 582 F.3d 602 (5th Cir. 2009) (specific mitigation and plans can justify remand)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (U.S. 2009) (four-prong plain-error test)
Dominguez Benitez v. United States, 542 U.S. 74 (U.S. 2004) (plain-error relief is difficult to obtain)
United States v. Dickson, 712 F.2d 952 (5th Cir. 1983) (discusses direct, personal inquiry for allocution)
Echegollen-Barrueta v. United States, 195 F.3d 786 (5th Cir. 1999) (allocution principles cited for personal inquiry)
Green v. United States, 365 U.S. 301 (U.S. 1961) (recognizing the unique value of a defendant’s own statement at sentencing)