*1 dez, Cir.1988) all, plaintiff deposition ter testified 853 F.2d (explain she had neither received medical ing party may “that a not prevail on a Rule 60(b)(3) colonoscopy nor treatment since her taken motion on the basis fraud where her medication for hemorrhoids. he or she has disputed access to informa tion ... at the time of the alleged miscon If more were needed—and we do not duct”). explained think is—we Karak capable is and party fully “[w]hen III. CONCLUSION
fairly preparing presenting his case party’s argua- notwithstanding the adverse go need no further. For the reasons misconduct, ble the trial court is free to above, uphold elucidated the district 60(b)(3).” deny relief under Rule plaintiffs court’s denial of the motion for Here, plaintiff 21-22. made judgment. relief from showing any misconduct the defen- Affirmed. dants’ her from fully counsel inhibited fairly preparing transpar- her case. It is
ently that, regardless of clear what de- done, may may
fense counsel not have plaintiff her fingertips had at the rec-
ords that would laid bare what she
now asserts to be the true facts. As in
Karak, pursuit truth was not except “hampered anything own h[er] America, UNITED STATES of reluctance to in- undertake assiduous Appellee, vestigation.” at 22. Id. plaintiff, The short of it PACHECO, Defendant, Giseline through attorneys, posses- Appellant. prior crafting sion her opposition to the judgment summary motion all the medical No. 11-2301. records that she now claims should have Appeals, United States been submitted to district court: The First Circuit. plaintiff failure of the attorneys and her proffer examine those records is no Aug. one’s fault but their own. Their effort pass time, technique the buck is a as old as
see, 3:11-13, e.g., efficacy Genesis but its improved basis for relief has not
age. aspect
That ends this of the matter.
Simply put, the record does not reveal
either fraud or any impediment unfair plaintiffs ability fully fairly against summary judgment
defend mo-
tion. Consequently, the district
not abuse its discretion in denying
plaintiffs motion for relief under Rule
60(b)(3). See Ojeda-Toro v. Rivera-Men
Pacheco argues that her pro- sentence is cedurally and substantively flawed and re- quests we vacate and remand for re- *3 (1) because district court: in denying request erred her for a continu- (2) ance the sentencing hearing; sen- tenced her under the impression incorrect that it could forego imposition aof imprisonment term of govern- without the ment first requesting a downward depar- Trebilcock-Horan, Thomas J. Research (the pursuant § ture to U.S.S.G. 5K1.1 Writing and Specialist; with whom Héctor “ motion”); (3) § 5K1.1 and afford Guzmán-Silva, E. Federal Public Defend- reject to allocate. er, and Héctor L. Ramos-Vega, Assistant contentions and affirm. Defender, Federal Public were brief for appellant. and Factual I. Procedural Martin, Justin Reid Assistant United Background Attorney, States with whom Rosa Emilia arrest, Pacheco, At the time of her a 20- Rodríguez-Vélez, Attorney, United States year-old single mother of young two chil- Pérez-Sosa, Nelson Assistant United dren, ages five, four and pregnant Chief, Attorney, Appellate Division, States with her third child. When she was de- Reyes-Ramos, and Juan Carlos Assistant tained, Pacheco named man who had Attorney, United States were on brief for allegedly recruited her to import drugs appellee. (the “recruiter”). Pacheco was later able pick recruiter lineup out of a and LYNCH, Before Judge, Chief expressed willingness in a LIPEZ, . TORRUELLA and Circuit pending case against him at the federal Judges. district court in Puerto As Rico. it turned TORRUELLA, out, Judge. Circuit in grand jury Rico Puerto had in- earlier, dicted recruiter several months On March Giseline Pacheco but the authorities had only arrested him (“Pacheco”) was airport arrested at an in day before Pacheco was detained. attempting import Puerto Rico for grams 29, 2011, of heroin from the Dominican Re- On March United Assistant 6, 2011, public. April (“AUSA”) On the government Attorney charge States in of the (1) (“AUSA case, indicted Pacheco conspiring pos- for: AUSA Justin R. Martin Martin”) sess with intent heroin distribute contacted Pacheco’s counsel to (2) 846; § violation of 18 possessing express government’s U.S.C. inclination to with the intent to distribute heroin vio- potential meet with Pacheco discuss her (3) 841; § lation of 21 conspiring U.S.C. cooperation supersede the recruiter’s import heroin violation of 21 by holding U.S.C. indictment him accountable for (4) 963; importing heroin, into larger quantities heroin based on the ' States violation of U.S.C. amount Pacheco carried when she ar- §§ 852 and 960. Pacheco entered meeting rested. The parties scheduled straight guilty plea was sentenced to May government imprisonment years months’ grand supersede and two time jury reserved supervised release.' alleged recruiter’s indictment. In the rec- agreement to plea recruiter’s]
meantime, [the indicted Pache- a 108- that he be sentenced to ommend co. term, it was the imprisonment month meeting govern- During the by the only option prosecutors conceived initially de- ment, recanted and arguably justifying filing in the recruiter’s involvement nied the motion Pacheco’s case 5K1 By end her arrest. that led to events good faith sponding however, speaking after meeting, energetic suggestion. court’s alone, attorney Pacheco reverted with her *4 events, but original 19, 2011, version August government to her the On in to manner re- cooperate refused in the agreed-upon filed the motion that, recruiter that had case, reveal to the she if stating could the case had cruiter’s testify to also refused trial, done so.1 She a to it would have had witness gone Jury a or at against him before Grand or had with testify conspired that he she this, un- the were parties trial. Based on import heroin from the the recruiter Pa- plea agreement 25, 2011, able to finalize a August Republic.2 Dominican On straight plea. alleged checo entered a court the the district sentenced imprisonment, to 108 months’ the recruiter hearing, judge change-of-plea At the the plea of time established in his amount a government if it would file asked bargain. requesting § a 5K1.1 motion downward The departure assistance. substantial September approximately On be- government responded it would not days sentencing five before Pacheco’s given opportu- Pacheco had been cause Santiago, Ruiz hearing, AUSA José A. nity had the recruiter division, charge of the criminal AUSA plea to a already pled guilty pursuant informing a motion the district filed sealed agreement. nonetheless judge file government that the would not a encouraged parties explore strongly days later, § 5K1.1 motion. Two Pacheco ways cooperate. requested sentencing a continuance of and, motion, request- hearing separate in a government, According to the AUSA government compelling an ed order supervisor de- Martin and his immediate its refusal produce supporting the evidence that, assent, gov- with Pacheco’s cided § promised file the 5K1.1 motion. motion ernment could file informative case, alleged prior to recruiter’s 3, 2011, sentencing at the On October sentencing. According govern- mo- district court denied the brief, ment’s sentencing to continue the after hear- tion parties’ positions' although government ing respective benefit to the surrounding controversy filing garding informative motion was inexistent, § 5K1.1 motion. The district court also practically gov- because the in favor already obligated arguments under heard the defense’s ernment was that, Pacheco, alleges days, According previous also several it was until 1. meeting other at the federal detention center May found out the detainees 11th that she being she was held threatened her government testify where ask before a would and, cooperating about with authorities. open grand jury necessary, if court. this, learning panic she attack After suffered course, We, experience pass judgment upon she recalled traumatic no afforded, testifying years value the district court could she was 15 old when alleged recruiter’s case. against a had assaulted her. She such motion man who expounded by Assis- tinuance of the sentencing hearing. lenient sentence as Pa- tant Public Defender Joannie Pla- then requested compel Federal checo an order to (“AFPD Plaza”). As will za Martinez be produce the information below, explained in full detail in the midst support its assertion that she fast-paced of what to be a appears and provide substantial assistance. The re- counsel, exchange said tense the dis- quest explained that the government’s new if any- trict court asked Pacheco she had position contrary to everything Pache- that, say. thing argues agreed co had regarding the AUSA the back and forth between the filing § of a 5K1.1 motion. attorney, emotionally as well as her At the hearing, AFPD Plaza state, altered she did not understand failed to convince the district court individually being addressed probable utility of a AFPD continuance. being she was invited her own gears that, Plaza then shifted and argued argues resentencing behalf. She thus if there would be 5K1.1 downward *5 required unequivo- because she was not departure, the court could consider Pache- cally the to allocute. afforded cooperation co’s for a downward variance district court determined Pa- arguments as the set supported forth range applicable guideline checo’s for sen- the Sentencing AFPD Memorandum.3 tencing imprisonment to 57 months’ a Plaza insisted on continuance so that she of years supervised and three five re- develop arguments could better court, however, lease. The district sen- garding mitigating factors Pacheco’s imprisonment tenced her 36 months’ case. years supervised and three of release. court, In her brief before this Pacheco Moreover, day sentencing, after posits that she needed the continuance dropped propio motu the sentence properly investigate government’s as- imprisonment years to months’ two why sertions and explain cooperation supervised of We each release. take issue had points been substantial. She out that in turn. one of the four cooperating witnesses criminal recruiter’s case had received a Analysis
II. of custody sentence seven hours under request A. The for a continuance for United States Marshals commit- above, days As stated several be ting Having similar conduct hers. more sentencing, government fore the filed a for prepare sentencing, time to announcing motion that it not would file a claims, would her to inform have allowed explained § 5K1.1 motion. It that Pache of the court all the facts to sentenc- prior only co agreed to once was ing. testify, certain would previous contended that her refusal to of a co We review the denial motion operate a government sentencing hearing had resulted continue for of abuse offering only the recruiter a plea, reduced discretion and overturn when the accepted. days which he Two after movant prejudice. suffered substantial filed, Moore, motion requested Pacheco a con- United States v. Sentencing immediately requested copy had not filed Mem- to see hard of hearing orandum before the and rather in- the memorandum and read it while the hear- during hearing formed the district ing ensued. it. she intended to file The district court Cir.2004). in the recruiter’s case. informative motion each case indi We assess the exact any number of Even if it was not aware of may consider
vidually (we may a num the motion or what sentences id. wording consider of factors. See prof- in that case including alleged cooperators “the movant’s other ber factors received, the continu its discre- needing for the court did abuse erred reasons [sic] necessary ance, time be- postponing amount of tion in not of time the amount would preparation, effective cause of those details still awareness preparation, available it to sentence Pacheco as previously not have allowed contribut movant has requested extent to which the a down- if the had probable utility predicament, toed assistance. ward for substantial variance continuance, of the incon the extent probable failed to establish the continuance, of a venience to others the in- utility a continuance preju or unfair injustice the likelihood even if it demon- sought, formation she from a denial the movant dice to court that Pacheco strated to continuance”). assistance, would provided substantial pro- court to not have allowed the district see no abuse discretion § ceed if a 5K1.1 motion had been filed. go forward decision district court’s concedes, actor that As Pacheco govern sentencing.4 Absent the with the can ascertain whether assistance was §a down actually moving for 5K1.1 ment enough 5K1.1 substantial to warrant amount of information departure, ward *6 government. motion the gathered could have Pacheco would have Second, cannot show that she depar Pacheco grant a the court to such allowed fact, argu- the court on her In was unable brief ture substantial assistance. regarding appropriate ments the sentence during hearing, the district court asked the Sentencing had because she fact her could cite AFPD Plaza twice whether she to, ready Memorandum the it single to a case that would allow 5K1,” it it at the it, able to read and consider into a judge put “factor argue At no did Pacheco hearing. point not. That is not she conceded could complete not able to she was surprising given that substantial assis “[a] on time or that Sentencing if Memorandum granted only tance departure can be it. complete more time to Pa- for one.” United she needed government moves checo thus to show that she Anonymous, failed States v. States, Cir.2010) injustice unfair prejudice v. United suffered Wade (citing to continue the district court’s refusal 118 L.Ed.2d 504 U.S. S.Ct. (1992)). sentencing hearing. Third, the extent that Pacheco claims Also, court was aware the district set prejudice filed from time to government fact had insufficient argues gument, pressed. though counsel re- in her brief Even Pache.co’s theory. AUSA Martin had garding AFPD Plaza and contract Even the breach of filing agreement regarding reached though counsel affirmed breach of contract motion, develop §a Pacheco does not 5K1.1 place, quickly he redirected the taken argument. a breach of She instead contract to the need for continuance in discussion on the fact that continuance was focuses light government’s position. We new government's alleged required because the analysis will restrict our con- therefore gov- caught guard, off and the volte-face pursue specter of a tinuance issue and not filing stated reasons ernment’s breach of contract-claim. During § oral motion were false. ar- 5K1.1 alleged type it straight about false of information could record consid- regarding er: government statements benefitting
the recruiter initial Argue your THE COURT: variance. him, testify against she is reluctance vary You want me to the sentence? posi- mistaken. The stated its course, MS. PLAZA: Of Your Honor. motion and Pacheco tion its informative THE COURT: That’s what have to both in her falsity denounced written concentrate on. opposition sentencing hearing. and at the I’m going MS. PLAZA: to concentrate Thus, had a opportunity fair to chal- that, saying but what I’m lenge government’s statements and is that if the going court is to not did so. We no abuse vigorously see cooperation— consider the in the decision to discretion district court’s THE COURT: I every- can consider juncture. proceed at that thing. turn to Pacheco’s properly now chal- MS. PLAZA: Ok. lenge of the sentence. THE But bringing COURT: heroin into crime, big States is a time impris- imposition of a B. term and she has to serve time for I’m that. onment sorry. argues the district prison term because it imposed PLAZA: MS. Since the Court seems to that, impression was under incorrect honor, be—Your there are other factors motion, of a it the absence 5K1.1 had its to take into But given consideration. hands tied could not consider her ef the Court’s presentation Change government. forts to Plea fo leads me to believe Court would consider re- though recently Even it was not until *7 leasing my client if a 5K motion in join[ed] that “we holding other circuits been filed. I think that is of course that, determining in the appropriate sen- I think prerogative, Court’s but that’s guidelines, varying tence within the or 3553(a) not of section demanded guidelines, sentencing from the a court has minimally I sufficient sentence. And discretion to consider defendant’s co- my think client has all factors operation as an 18 It by behalf. should be considered 3553(a) factor, govern- even if U.S.C. Court. ment has not 5K1.1 motion for [filed a] a I your THE COURT: Sen- looked departure,” downward United States v. Memorandum, I tencing am con- Landrón-Class, F.3d 696 66 Cir. sidering it. 2012), transcript it clear from the sentencing hearing that the district court ... PLAZA: But the defendant’s MS. that, in fully imposing
was aware the sen- attempts can be taken into tence, it had the discretion to consider my And I memo- consideration. cite willingness cooperate. Pacheco’s The say cases that that the randum Court that, transcript indicates when AFPD Pla- can use that information if not for a 5K za insisted the court consider Pache- reduction, but for other— sentence, cooperation co’s imposing when a court than I was the district stated more once THE COURT: You heard that it going feel constrained relation to consider variance. 48 Well, added). ... [s]he PLAZA: Your Honor
(emphasis vulnerable, and was used was clear that the sufficiently think it is We pur- And the this criminal venture. it had discretion court understood pose— cooper- attempts Pacheco’s consider Listen, I’ve THE heard COURT: and, fact, having never denied dis- ate say, want enough. Anything you having it. But discre- to consider cretion ma’am?” something does entitle tion to consider Court— n Honor, I ask the PLAZA: Your district court to force the defendant asking you I’m to shut THE COURT: being considered into the issue factor say, ma’am? up. Anything you want from tran- It is evident final decision. Anything? that, willing although court script (Shaking head THE DEFENDANT: significantly impose sentence side.) side recom- than what Guidelines lower Anything? THE [AUSA] COURT: it consider the co- could mended said Martin, else? charged operation, also considered Nothing, Honor. MARTIN: Your sufficiently serious to war- to be offenses Very see abuse THE COURT: well. imprisonment. rant court’s choice to the district discretion sentencing We review de novo imprisonment. a term of impose compliance court’s Fed.R.Crim.P. 82(i)(4)(A). States v. Riveras-Rod United opportunity to allocute C. The (1st Cir.2010) 605 ríguez, (citing Burgos-Andújar, v. United States transcript sentencing (1st Cir.2001)). escalating an be hearing indicates tension 32(i)(4)(a)(ii), Fed.R.Crim.P. AFPD Plaza and the district court Pursuant to tween sentence, a must imposing its judge attempted pro when the before at in order personally and AFPD Plaza “address the defendant ceed with pres- argue permit lenient the defendant tempted favor Immediately mitigate the sen- sentence for Pacheco. before ent information to States, In after to a immediately putting end tence.” Green 653, 5 with AFPD Plaza 81 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d fast-paced discussion U.S. (1961), Supreme recognized telling up,” said counsel “shut the dis *8 history law of long right if was of common trict court asked Pacheco there “[tjaken that, in the say.5 she The allocution. It stated anything wanted relevant history, of can little portion hearing transpired of as fol context there be in- that of Rule 32[] doubt the drafters lows: preference During argument, requested recording, personal oral we that mal "a investigate sentencing parties whether the jurisdiction.” coun- [their] outside Pacheco’s hearing had The been recorded. requested that issue an order to com- sel stating personnel that at the filed motion pel reporter the court who transcribed that, a court district court had indicated when sentencing hearing in this case to reveal reporter proceedings are re- present, is hearing. We recorded the whether she had (ForTheRecord). using FTR Subse- corded (the only If no FTR denied motion. quently, Pacheco's counsel filed motion hearings cording authorized to record method copy management an email which court) a court at the exists because district personnel at the district court told him reporter present, we will review existed, recording no FTR but whether or hearing. transcript of the official reporter court decided to an infor- make 49 be personally choosing prior tended that defendant imposition of his speak opportunity afforded the before Id. sentence.”
imposition of sentence.”
Id. at
argues
Pacheco
she began sobbing
Although
Supreme
S.Ct. 653.
Court
uncontrollably after
heard the
she
Green reviewed a
transcript
described
court state earlier in the
im-
hearing that
being,
play,
“unlike
is unac-
[because it]
heroin
porting
into the United States is a
companied
stage
directions which
may
crime that must
a term
significant
eye
tell the
cast of the
or
entail
of imprison-
head,”
Court
on
nod of the
focused
ment.
her crying,
She claims that
and the
transcript explicitly
what
indicated.
fact that she was not addressed individual-
304-05,
Id. at
6. The
weight
argument
Court
Green
the
been raised earlier
the
challenge
to the fact that the
had been raised
weight
gave
the
"[t]he
obvious
Court also
to
years
sentencing
place.
several
after the
took
Green,
single pertinent sentence.”
U.S.
365
think, however,
We do not
that
the Court
304,
rollably and cuit, to her. She further being said what was might have even been shé
argues that roots the common historical [w]ith from to side head side shaking her law, plead mercy the to for opportunity something than to the to other response provision procedural is another to her. We decline being posed question sys- body designed of our law enable speculate pos- as to invitation Pacheco’s justice punishment out tem mete meanings of her actions. sible alternative equitable possible, fashion the most personally question asked help particu- is ensure immediately shook her head and she circum- larized and reflects individual context, the we Given believe side to side. stances. interpretation of the reasonable Barnes, v. 948 F.2d States United say nothing that she action is (7th Cir.1991); States v. see also United to its “Do response question, court (1st F.3d Cir. Burgos-Andújar, 275 say, Even anything to ma’am?” 2008) giving (noting long “our tradition given the have been ideal though it would right directly the address all defendants circumstances, nec- do think was we mercy”). plead court and We have the even force the court essary for elicit right the of allocu- .accordingly described Further, response from Pacheco. a verbal tion as “sacrosanct.” United States speak, once declined district Genao-Sánchez, Cir. obligation insist that she court had 2008). Therefore, of com- burden “[t]he sum, opportunity speak. In seize right with rests plying allocution[ ] claim that no merit to Pacheco’s
we find defendant,” with court right not afforded allocute. responsibility court bears “mak[ing] sure the defendant understands III. Conclusion say anything [she] above, For the set forth reasons imposed.” is wants before sentence [she] affirm district court’s sentence. Vasquez, States v. Cir.2000). (5th Affirmed. 458-59 Here, much record shows that for LIPEZ, Judge, Dissenting. Circuit court sentencing hearing, district majority I Although concur in a conten- engaged and defense counsel the district court acted within discretion regarding a exchange tious number is- by continu- denying Pacheco’s motion majority “escalating *10 (cid:127)time,” judge nity trial said: “Wait minute. present plea States, honestly involving think that a mitigation.” you 365 Do case Green United jail Anything you heroin be allowed without [meaning should the defendant] want to say, Anything? time?” After this statement was inter- ma’am? her, (and
preted for Pacheco asserts THE (Shaking DEFENDANT: head dispute) does not that she be- side.) from side to gan weeping.7 Inquiry: Third fraught dialogue This culminated THE Anything? COURT: [AUSA] majority quotes, passage the where Martin, else? he district court told counsel that had Nothing, MARTIN: Your Honor. enough” asking “heard before Pache- [her] THE Very COURT: well. anything co whether she had wanted far can So as we tell transcript, from the When counsel persisted, contribute. exchanges these occur in a matter of sec- the court to shut up” “ask[ed before her] In onds. the first inquiry, the court pre- Pacheco and turning inquiring once faces its invitation to the defendant again anything say. whether speak with the admonition Plaza that he On exchanges the basis between enough has heard In from her. the second defendant, judge majority inquiry, prefaces the court its invitation personally concludes “Pacheco was literally asking attorney up.” to “shut question immediately asked a and she responds The defendant this invitation shook her head from side to side. Given by shaking her head side from to side. context, only we believe the reasonable inquiry third consists one word interpretation of that action is that she had court, from the “Anything?”, apparently nothing say to the court in response response to the shaking defendant question, you ‘Do anything say, have But it is unclear transcript head. from the ” ma’am?’ third inquiry whether this was directed to majority’s I strongly disagree prosecutor. defendant or the Since supposed evaluation the context of the Martin responds “Nothing, who Your closely allocution. One must look at the Honor,” inquiry it- appears upon by majori- inquiries three relied at him. directed ty: sense, judge In a formal invited the Inquiry:
First imposed defendant before he But it is imagine sentence. hard to a more Listen, you THE COURT: I’ve heard uninviting twenty-year invitation. The old enough [referring to Pacheco’s attor- defendant, tears, already just heard ney]. Anything you [meaning defen- attorney rapid tell her succes- say, want to ma’am? dant] sion -that he has enough” “heard Inquiry: Second up” before she “shut shakes head Honor, PLAZA: Your I ask side, nothing signaling side that she has Court— say. says Yet the “the majority THE asking you interpretation” [refer- COURT: I’m reasonable of the de- ring attorney] up. shaking to Pacheco’s “is that shut fendant her head she had notes, majority impact 7. As the we have cannot listen to we doubts about the recording page of the words on Pacheco's to allo- cuté, might which us a feel for resolve fa- better must them Pacheco's exchanges. atmospherics Pagán, But the vor. See United States v. De Alba (1st Cir.2009). transcript speaks for To the itself. extent *11 52 never be reduced to to be heard must right response to the court
nothing say Sparrow, formality.”); States v. question.” (“Even Cir.1982) (5th 673 F.2d 865 far contrary, I that the believe To the specifics of satisfies the judge where of this sce- interpretation more reasonable still ourselves Rule we must assure defendant, even if she did nario is that merely was not compliance that judge, was so something say form.”). Here, there was at best of display anger by intimidated In sub- compliance with Rule 32. formal attorney that impatience handling stance, however, the court’s of courage speak. could not summon sentencing hearing a hostile created did not “in- the defendant incompatible with the atmosphere that was clearly and in a manner that shows teract of the meaningful exercise defendant’s defendant knew convincingly alloeute. right to any subject on right speak [she] ' imposition choosing prior to of [her] point. final clear on one I wish' be v. De Pa States Alba sentence.” United as a criti- should not be read My dissent (1st Cir.1994) (em gán, judge’s toward of the trial conduct cism added). To extent that is there phasis Indeed, displayed he generally. uncertainty about defendant’s con- toward her in other marked solicitude juncture, at this critical those state mind texts, change hear- plea such as at the be resolved the defen- should “[d]oubts to offer ing, urging majority Id. The has failed favor.” dant’s He was un- departure. a downward to do that. as a questionably sympathetic plight (cid:127) easy judges, enveloped It is all too for two, with child on young mother of a third authority their the courtroom counsel, His at way. ire was directed office, impact their to underestimate intemperate His herself. parties words before demeanor and brief, lapse momentary were words why judges, them. That even when But at an lapse inop- came control. counsel, always provoked by must measure time, portune consequences with serious carefully. words- their manner their the defendant’s here, happen That with serious sentencing. before right to consequences for defendant’s agree I that Pacheco Because cannot alloeute. meaningful opportunity al- explained, As the Circuit Second locute, I would vacate her sentence and de- Rule on allocution “demands each so she can sentenced in remand be meaningful right to fendant allowed .a be the strictures of Rule compliance with express mitigating relevant information 32(i)(4)(A)(ii). reasons, I For these receptive an attentive and before spectfully dissent. Li, judge.” 115 F.3d United States (2d Cir.1997). Thus, an “creating] atmosphere obviously rendered- it dif- present
ficult [the defendant] allocu- potentially persuasive
effective and may deprivation
tion” result Id.; Barnes,
right. see also (“Because decision is a
weighty the defendant’s responsibility, notes sues. The ance, I that Pacheco was de- conclude coun- tension” between the trial opportunity to allocute be- prived of sel, compounded counsel’s confused and sentencing. fore I would therefore vacate repetitive presentation trial and remand for resentenc- sentence increasing her ar- judge’s impatience with opportunity. ing give that would end of the guments. Toward the emphasized court’s vexation reached its Supreme Court has In concern provenance peak. response and the to counsel’s both the historical “informally [telling] importance of permitting “[the] substantial jail defendant, going impose personally, opportu- have the client