United States v. Quincy Hoover, 664 F. App'x 363

DEA intercepted communications linking Hoover to a large drug ring importing drugs from Houston; police arrested him during a traffic stop and found drugs, multiple cellphones, a drug ledger, and a hidden compartment in his vehicle.
A subsequent search of Hoover’s home and truck yielded firearms, seven pounds of marijuana, 2,500 grams of hydrocodone and Xanax, $20,000 in cash, and co-defendants’ arrests producing additional seized funds.
Hoover pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute 500+ grams of cocaine (21 U.S.C. § 841) and to possession of a firearm during a drug-trafficking offense (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)); other counts were dismissed.
The presentence report misstated Guidelines ranges and supervised-release statutory minima; the district court corrected the offense level from 29 to 27 (reducing the custody Guidelines range) but the supervised-release ranges remained unobjected to by Hoover.
At sentencing Hoover’s counsel waived allocution on his behalf; the court imposed consecutive sentences (108 months for the conspiracy count, 60 months for the § 924(c) count) and concurrent five-year supervised-release terms.
On appeal Hoover raised four challenges: drug-quantity/base-level calculation, denial of personal allocution, erroneous supervised-release ranges, and alleged pre-report sentencing statements by the district court.

Issue	Hoover's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
1) Drug-quantity / base offense level calculation	District miscalculated quantity and base level	Hoover previously agreed to resolution in district court; waived the claim	Waived and unreviewable
2) Denial of personal allocution	Court addressed counsel rather than Hoover, violating Rule 32(i)(4)(A)(ii)	Government concedes plain error but says no prejudice shown	Plain error exists but Hoover failed to show it affected fairness; affirmed
3) Erroneous supervised-release statutory/Guidelines ranges	Report and court adopted incorrect supervised-release ranges	No timely objection; review under plain-error standard	Hoover failed to satisfy plain-error prongs; affirmed
4) Court announced supervised-release term before report	Court allegedly preannounced a five-year supervised-release term for § 924(c)	Transcript shows court was explaining concurrent nature of supervised release; no preclusive ruling	No error; affirmed

Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (preservation and forfeiture; waiver vs. forfeiture distinctions)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (four-prong plain-error review)
United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (difficulty of satisfying plain-error relief)
United States v. Magwood, 445 F.3d 826 (allocution error requires showing it would have produced a lower sentence)
Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (Guidelines miscalculation and plain-error review)
United States v. Musquiz, 45 F.3d 927 (waived errors are unreviewable)