United States v. Patricia L. Butler
684 F. App'x 886
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Patricia Butler pled guilty to one count of theft of government money under 18 U.S.C. § 641 and was sentenced to 12 months and 1 day.
- Butler did not object at sentencing to the court’s failure to address her personally for allocution.
- The district court asked Butler only during a discussion of acceptance of responsibility whether she wanted to speak, addressing counsel rather than Butler later.
- The government concedes the district court should have personally addressed Butler again and allowed full allocution before imposing sentence.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviews unpreserved allocution errors for plain error under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(4)(A)(ii).
- The panel concluded the record did not show the functional equivalent of a personal opportunity to speak and Butler’s sentence exceeded the low end of the guideline range.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court violated the defendant's right of allocution under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(4)(A)(ii) | Butler: court failed to personally address her and allow her to speak on any subject before sentencing | Government: conceded error that allocution should have been allowed after ruling on guidelines issue | Court: error; district court did not provide the required personal allocution opportunity |
| Standard of review for unpreserved allocution error | Butler: plain error review applies | Government: agreed plain error review applies | Court: applied plain error standard |
| Whether a colloquy about acceptance of responsibility suffices as allocution | Butler: limited colloquy did not inform her of right to speak on any subject | Government: conceded insufficiency in this case | Court: colloquy was not the functional equivalent of required personal allocution |
| Whether reversal is required where allocution error occurred and sentence exceeded guideline low end | Butler: plain error established, warrants vacatur | Government: agreed remand appropriate | Court: vacated sentence and remanded for full allocution and resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Perez, 661 F.3d 568 (11th Cir. 2011) (plain-error review for failure to afford allocution; requires functional-equivalency showing; all plain-error prongs met when allocution omitted and sentence above guideline low end)