United States v. Ramiro Montoya-De La Cruz
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 11822
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Montoya, a Spanish‑speaking defendant, repeatedly reentered the U.S. after deportation and had prior convictions and probation for illegal entry; he pled guilty to illegal reentry in 2015 and faced probation revocation for a 2013 offense.
- At a single hearing, Judge Biery sentenced Montoya on the new illegal‑reentry conviction and revoked probation for the prior offense; both sentences were at the bottom of the applicable advisory Guidelines ranges and ordered to run consecutively.
- The court engaged Montoya in a brief colloquy (asking why he returned, his plans, etc.), but did not explicitly and unequivocally inform him of his right to allocute before pronouncing sentence; neither Montoya nor counsel objected at sentencing.
- Montoya appealed, arguing the district court plainly erred by failing to afford a Rule 32 allocution opportunity; the Government argued the court’s open‑ended questions satisfied Rule 32.
- The Fifth Circuit majority held the district court committed plain error in failing to explicitly offer allocution but declined to reverse because Montoya failed to show the error affected his substantial rights; he received bottom‑of‑Guidelines sentences and proffered no mitigating arguments at sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court complied with Rule 32’s allocution requirement | Montoya: court’s brief, topic‑driven questioning did not unequivocally offer right to speak on any subject | Government: open‑ended questioning encompassed mitigation and thus satisfied Rule 32 | Court: Error—district court failed to unequivocally offer allocution; strict compliance required |
| Whether the plain error affected Montoya’s substantial rights | Montoya: prejudice should be presumed because neither he nor counsel had opportunity to urge downward variance | Government: absence of mitigation argument suggests no prejudice; counsel could have but did not move for variance | Court: No substantial‑rights effect—sentences at bottom of Guidelines and no proffered mitigating arguments, so no reversal |
| Whether presumption of prejudice applies when defendant is sentenced at bottom of Guidelines | Montoya: asks presumption because allocution denied | Government: Reyna presumption limited; defendant did not present mitigating arguments | Court: Presumption not triggered where defendant got bottom‑of‑Guidelines sentence and did not proffer arguments that would lower sentence |
| Whether plain error remedy discretionary after showing the first three prongs | Montoya: seeks correction of plain error | Government: discretionary relief not warranted given facts | Court: Even though error was plain, appellate relief not warranted because fairness/integrity not seriously affected |
Key Cases Cited
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (plain‑error standard for unpreserved errors)
- United States v. Reyna, 358 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2004) (allocution right; presumption of prejudice analysis)
- 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) (colloquy on limited topics does not satisfy Rule 32)
- United States v. Villa‑Lujan, 661 Fed.Appx. 285 (5th Cir. 2016) (similar facts; no presumption of prejudice where bottom‑of‑Guidelines sentence and no mitigation proffer)