United States v. Jose Palacios, Jr., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 23297

Palacios, a licensed attorney, pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 100 kg+ of marijuana and was sentenced to 144 months (mid-range of 135–168 months) and five years supervised release.
The PSR recommended offense level 38 (category I) but noted possible acceptance-of-responsibility reduction and an upward departure for abuse of his position as an attorney; the court ultimately set offense level 33.
At sentencing the court asked Palacios to describe the wrongful conduct to assess acceptance of responsibility; Palacios did so and received a 3-level reduction.
After defense counsel made brief mitigating remarks (classes, young son, no prior record), the court made comments directly to Palacios but did not explicitly or unequivocally invite him to allocute on any subject before imposing sentence.
Palacios did not object at sentencing; on appeal he argued the court plainly erred by denying his Rule 32 allocution right and submitted a detailed statement of what he would have said in mitigation.
The Fifth Circuit concluded the district court committed clear error in failing to provide a specific, unequivocal allocution opportunity, that the error affected substantial rights (mid-Guidelines sentence), and exercised its discretion to vacate and remand for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court’s failure to give Palacios a specific, unequivocal opportunity to allocute before sentencing was plain error warranting resentencing	Palacios: court did not unequivocally ask him to speak on any subject before sentence; he would have offered detailed mitigation that could have reduced the sentence	Government: court’s comments and PSR gave a comprehensive view; counsel made mitigating points; Palacios, as a lawyer, knew his rights and would have spoken if needed	Court: Plain error occurred; error affected substantial rights (mid-range sentence); exercise of discretion to correct — vacate and remand for resentencing

United States v. Reyna, 358 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2004) (plain-error framework for Rule 32 allocution violations and when remand is appropriate)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (standards for plain-error review)
United States v. Magwood, 445 F.3d 826 (5th Cir. 2006) (court must unequivocally inform defendant of right to allocute)
United States v. Echegollen-Barrueta, 195 F.3d 786 (5th Cir. 1999) (allocution requirement requires a direct, personal inquiry)
United States v. Avila-Cortez, 582 F.3d 602 (5th Cir. 2009) (exercise of discretion to correct allocution error where defendant specified what he would have said)
Green v. United States, 365 U.S. 301 (1961) (defendant’s personal allocution may be more persuasive than counsel’s advocacy)