United States v. Maliki Chapman, 915 F.3d 139

Chapman pleaded guilty (June 2016) to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute 3.5–5 kg of cocaine; career‑offender guidelines produced a range of 188–235 months; plea agreement reserved government recommendation of 188 months and allowed defense to seek as low as 144 months.
Sentencing was repeatedly continued; District Court set sentencing for March 10, 2017. On that date Chapman stated he had not been told of the hearing due to counsel’s calendaring error and asked for at least a week’s continuance so his family could attend and submit supporting letters.
The District Court acknowledged counsel’s error but denied the continuance, saying proceeding would not affect Chapman’s substantive rights; the court proceeded after limited colloquy and sentenced Chapman to 192 months’ imprisonment.
Chapman appealed, arguing denial of the continuance deprived him of his Rule 32 allocution right to present mitigating information (including family letters) and that prejudice should be presumed.
The Third Circuit found Chapman preserved the issue, reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion, and concluded the District Court’s refusal unfairly limited allocution and appearance of fairness; it vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing before a different judge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Chapman)	Defendant's Argument (Government/District Court)	Held
Whether denial of continuance denied Chapman meaningful allocution under Rule 32	Counsel’s calendaring error prevented Chapman and his family from presenting mitigating letters and speaking fully; denial curtailed his right to present any information to mitigate sentence	Court said it knew what it needed to know and proceeding would not affect Chapman’s substantive rights; government argued lack of palpable prejudice	Denial was an abuse of discretion because it interfered with the right to allocution; prejudice is ordinarily presumed and resentencing required
Whether issue was preserved for appeal	Chapman objected at sentencing when court refused to continue; this preserved the claim	—	Issue preserved; appellate review applies
Whether the error is harmless or requires resentencing	Chapman: inability to present family letters could have influenced sentence; plea agreement allowed lower sentence	Government: no palpable prejudice shown	Prejudice presumed for allocution violations; harm not harmless — vacate and remand for resentencing
Whether the same judge should preside at resentencing	Chapman: fairness requires neutral consideration of newly submitted mitigation	District Court: would likely be fair; docket considerations	Third Circuit remanded for resentencing before a different judge to preserve both reality and appearance of impartiality

United States v. Olfano, 503 F.3d 240 (3d Cir. 2007) (abuse of discretion review of continuance denials)
Unger v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575 (U.S. 1964) (no mechanical test for continuance abuse; examine circumstances)
United States v. Paladino, 769 F.3d 197 (3d Cir. 2014) (allocution is a substantial right that can influence sentencing)
United States v. Plotts, 359 F.3d 247 (3d Cir. 2004) (prejudice presumed where allocution compromised)
United States v. Ward, 732 F.3d 175 (3d Cir. 2013) (critical purposes of allocution: mitigating circumstances, individualization, appearance of fairness)
United States v. Adams, 252 F.3d 276 (3d Cir. 2001) (allocution’s role in sentencing and harmless‑error analysis)
Green v. United States, 365 U.S. 301 (U.S. 1961) (importance of defendant personally speaking in mitigation)
United States v. Jarvi, 537 F.3d 1256 (10th Cir. 2008) (courts should allow presentation of information defendant reasonably believes is best for mitigation)
United States v. Barnes, 948 F.2d 325 (7th Cir. 1991) (warns against assembly‑line sentencing and stresses fairness)
United States v. Navarro‑Flores, 628 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 2010) (considerations on whether same judge should resentencing)
Gov’t of the V.I. v. Walker, 261 F.3d 370 (3d Cir. 2001) (supervisory power to reassign matters to preserve appearance of impartiality)