439 F. App'x 312
5th Cir.2011Background
- Legg appeals a one-year imprisonment sentence imposed after supervised-release revocation.
- Legg contends the sentence is procedurally unreasonable for denial of allocution, lack of individualized assessment, and reliance on clearly erroneous facts.
- Legg did not object at sentencing to denial of allocution; plain-error review applies.
- The panel finds an error in not giving a specific, unequivocal opportunity to speak in mitigation, but the error is weighed under a plain-error framework with Magwood and Reyna guidance.
- Despite the error and Legg’s position near the top of the Guidelines range, the court declines to correct the error, applying Magwood and Reyna restraint.
- The court also rejects Legg’s claims of lack of individualized assessment and reliance on aggregated facts, finding no error under either plain-error or plainly-unreasonable standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court err by denying allocution? | Legg (Legg) argues denial of allocution violated Rule 32.1. | Legg contends the court failed to give mitigation opportunity. | Plain-error; no correction required. |
| Was there a necessity for an individualized assessment? | Legg asserts the sentence lacked individualized assessment. | Legg’s reasoning insufficient to show lack of individualized assessment. | No error; individualized assessment satisfied. |
| Were the facts used to impose the sentence clearly erroneous? | Legg claims lumping his conduct with another defendant biased the facts. | Court’s reasons applicable to Legg; no clearly erroneous facts. | No error; no clearly erroneous factual finding. |
| What standard governs review of Legg’s claims? | Reviewed under plainly-unreasonable/ plain-error standard. | Either standard applies; court applied it properly. | Court did not err under either standard; affirm. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Reyna, 358 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2004) (plain-error review for allocution when not objected to)
- Magwood, 445 F.3d 826 (5th Cir. 2006) (mitigation and reweighing in the absence of allocution)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (Sup. Ct. 2009) (decision on when prejudice from error requires correction)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (S. Ct. 2007) (necessity of individualized assessment and treatment of facts)
- Miller v. United States, 634 F.3d 841 (5th Cir. 2011) (standard for review of supervised-release revocation sentences)