United States v. Samuel Frazier, 714 F. App'x 352

Defendant Samuel John Frazier pleaded guilty to willful failure to file a tax return and was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment (within the Guidelines).
His plea agreement included a broad appeal waiver but reserved rights to raise ineffective assistance, prosecutorial misconduct, sentences exceeding statutory maximum, and sentences based on unconstitutional factors.
At rearraignment the district court did not expressly ask Frazier whether he read or understood the plea agreement or the appeal waiver.
Frazier did not object below to the Rule 11 colloquy, allocution procedure, or to cross-examination during allocution; appellate review was therefore for plain error where applicable.
Frazier argued: (1) the appeal waiver was not knowing and voluntary; (2) the court interrupted and limited his right of allocution and allowed cross-examination during allocution; and (3) his within-Guidelines sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable given this was a first misdemeanor offense.
The Fifth Circuit pretermitted the waiver question and rejected Frazier’s claims, affirming the conviction and sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of appeal waiver	Waiver not knowing/voluntary because court did not advise or confirm understanding of plea agreement/waiver at rearraignment	Government: waiver bars appeal; plea agreement encompassed appellate rights	Court pretermitted waiver issue and addressed merits instead; did not find reversible error
Interruption/limitation of allocution	Court improperly interrupted and limited allocution, restricting Frazier to accepting responsibility	Government: allocution was permitted; interruption was brief and court later allowed full allocution	No plain error; record shows allocution was ultimately allowed without improper limitation
Cross-examination during allocution	Frazier contends he was subjected to cross-examination during allocution	Government: no cross-examination occurred during allocution	No error — record shows no cross-examination during allocution
Reasonableness of sentence (procedural & substantive)	Sentence unreasonable for first-time misdemeanor; court should have considered proposed Guidelines amendments and § 994(j) arguments	Government: within-Guidelines sentence appropriate after considering PSR and § 3553(a) factors; Commission did not adopt proposed amendments	Sentence affirmed; court acted within authority and within-Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable

United States v. Oliver, 630 F.3d 397 (5th Cir. 2011) (plain-error review when defendant failed to object to Rule 11 colloquy)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (standard for plain-error review and remedy)
United States v. Story, 439 F.3d 226 (5th Cir. 2006) (appeal-waiver issue is nonjurisdictional)
United States v. Reyna, 358 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2004) (plain-error review for unpreserved allocution claims)
United States v. Hernandez, 291 F.3d 313 (5th Cir. 2002) (allocution rights and related review)
United States v. White, 869 F.2d 822 (5th Cir. 1989) (interpretation of prior § 5B1.1 in relation to § 994(j))
United States v. Tuma, 738 F.3d 681 (5th Cir. 2013) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)