United States v. Pereznegron, 20-20644

David Villegas Pereznegron is a five-time DWI offender who was deported after his fourth conviction and later returned and committed a felony DWI; he received a 3-year state sentence.
While serving that sentence he pleaded guilty to illegal reentry; he sought a downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 comment n.7 for overlapping state custody and submitted family letters as mitigation.
At federal sentencing the parties agreed the Guidelines range was 46–57 months; the government urged a within-guidelines term due to public-safety concerns.
The district judge invited defense counsel to speak, asked Villegas targeted questions, but did not clearly inform him of a general right to allocute; the court made adverse remarks about Villegas and stated the letters would not change the sentence.
The judge imposed 48 months. Villegas appealed solely on the ground that the court denied his right to allocute; because he did not object at sentencing, the court reviewed for plain error.
The Fifth Circuit majority affirmed, holding Villegas failed prong four of the plain-error test (no objective basis showing allocution would have led to a lower sentence); Judge Elrod dissented, arguing allocution likely would have provided unique mitigating detail and vacatur/remand was warranted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court plainly erred by failing to allow allocution at sentencing	Government: No reversible error; sentence within Guidelines warranted given recidivism and public-safety risk; mitigation (letters) was considered and would not have changed the sentence	Villegas: The court denied his Rule 32(i)(4)(A)(ii) right to allocute; he would have presented personal, mitigating facts beyond counsel/letters that could have reduced the sentence	Affirmed: No plain error — defendant did not show an objective basis that allocution would probably have moved the court to impose a lower sentence (failed prong four)

United States v. Muhammad, 14 F.4th 352 (5th Cir. 2021) (plain-error framework for sentencing review)
United States v. Palacios, 844 F.3d 527 (5th Cir. 2016) (allocution error can require vacatur where defendant would add mitigating facts beyond counsel)
United States v. Magwood, 445 F.3d 826 (5th Cir. 2006) (requirement to show objective basis that would have moved court to a lower sentence)
United States v. Chavez-Perez, 844 F.3d 540 (5th Cir. 2016) (defendant must fail to present objective mitigating basis for affirmance despite allocution error)
United States v. Figueroa-Coello, 920 F.3d 260 (5th Cir. 2019) (multiple opportunities to allocute at other hearings may cure allocution error)
United States v. Avila-Cortez, 582 F.3d 602 (5th Cir. 2009) (vacatur for allocution error where defendant would have explained alcohol abuse and plan to avoid relapse)
United States v. Reyna, 358 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (vacatur is default for allocution error except in limited categories)
Green v. United States, 365 U.S. 301 (1961) (defendant personally may provide mitigation that counsel cannot convey)