United States v. Wayne Scott, 900 F.3d 972

Background

Wayne Scott pled guilty (18 U.S.C. § 1341) and was sentenced to 63 months imprisonment and 36 months supervised release; a condition forbade incurring new credit without probation approval.
In 2017 the government moved to revoke supervised release based on Scott’s purchase of a Jaguar without probation approval; the Probation Office had earlier prepared reports about other, unrelated violations but not for the 2017 credit-violation.
At the July 6, 2017 revocation hearing the court found a violation; the government recommended and the court imposed a 36‑month extension of supervised release after defense counsel said, “we have no objection to extending the period of mandatory supervised release.”
Scott attempted to speak at the hearing but was interrupted by counsel; counsel then told the court Scott had nothing further to say and the court did not personally confirm with Scott an allocution waiver.
New counsel appeared at a July 19 status hearing, stated he was “not looking to reopen” the sentencing but asked for a shorter supervision term; Scott later filed motions to reconsider asserting (among other things) lack of guidelines calculation and denial of allocution; district court denied relief and entered judgment (one day custody + 36 months supervised release).
On appeal Scott argued the district court erred by failing to calculate or discuss the advisory Guidelines range and by denying his right to allocute under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(c)(1); the majority found both claims waived and affirmed, while the dissent would remand for resentencing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Failure to calculate/consider advisory Guidelines at revocation	Scott: court did not compute or consider Chapter 7 revocation Guidelines for the 2017 credit violation, producing an ad‑hoc, unanchored sentence	Government/District: parties (probation & gov’t) referenced prior reports and counsel’s omissions; defense counsel’s conduct amounted to waiver	Majority: waived by defense counsel; appellate review precluded. Dissent: error and would remand.
Denial of right to allocute under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(c)(1)	Scott: he attempted to speak but was cut off by counsel and the court never personally afforded him a meaningful opportunity to address the court	Government/District: counsel’s statements that client had nothing to add constituted an intentional relinquishment; revocation hearings are more summary	Majority: waived because counsel relinquished objections and confirmed no allocution; affirmed. Dissent: no knowing waiver, Rule 32.1 entitles defendant to personal invitation to allocute; would remand.
Preservation vs. waiver/forfeiture standard	Scott: any failure was at most forfeiture (plain‑error) because he timely moved for reconsideration before judgment	Government: events at hearings and counsel statements show intentional relinquishment of rights	Majority: treats the omissions as waiver; declines review. Dissent: no clear intentional relinquishment; if forfeited, plain‑error review would require reversal/remand.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Brodie, 507 F.3d 527 (7th Cir. 2007) (discusses waiver where defendant/s counsel relinquish sentencing objections)
Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (distinguishes waiver and forfeiture; discusses plain‑error standard)
United States v. Pitre, 504 F.3d 657 (7th Cir. 2007) (Rule 32.1 requires personal invitation to allocute at revocation)
United States v. Downs, 784 F.3d 1180 (7th Cir. 2015) (court must calculate/consider Chapter 7 revocation Guidelines)
Molina‑Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (guidelines miscalculation presumptively affects sentence)
United States v. Lee, 795 F.3d 682 (7th Cir. 2015) (revocation hearings are more summary but defendants retain certain procedural protections)