Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-16-10218/USCOURTS-ca5-16-10218-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Antoine Joseph Hedary
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-10218

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ANTOINE JOSEPH HEDARY,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CR-189-1

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Antoine Joseph Hedary appeals the 30-month sentence that he received 

after pleading guilty to committing fraud in connection with access devices. 

Hedary’s sole argument is that by denying his motion for a downward variance 

before he addressed the district court, the court denied him a meaningful 

opportunity to allocute. Because Hedary did not object in the district court 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 22, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-10218 Document: 00513809696 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/22/2016
No. 16-10218

2

that he was denied his right to allocute, our review is for plain error only. See 

United States v. Avila-Cortez, 582 F.3d 602, 604 (5th Cir. 2009).

At the beginning of the sentencing hearing, the district court, after 

giving the defense the opportunity to present evidence and argument, denied 

Hedary’s motion for a downward variance in which he argued that his prior 

crimes were not violent and he was at a lower-than-usual risk to recidivate 

given his age and commitment to drug treatment. The district court later 

permitted defense counsel to make sentencing arguments, allowed Hedary to 

present witnesses, and gave Hedary the unrestricted opportunity to allocute.

Even if the better practice is to rule on any request for a Booker variance 

after the defendant has allocuted, Hedary cannot show the obvious error 

required in light of his failure to raise the issue in the trial court. The out-ofcircuit cases he cites finding allocution error involved a district judge 

announcing the sentence or declaring it would only sentence within the 

Guidelines range before it heard from the defendant. See, e.g., United States 

v. Mendeoza-Lopez, 669 F.3d 1148, 1152 (10th Cir. 2012); United States v. 

Landeros-Lopez, 615 F.3d 1260, 1264-1268 (10th Cir. 2010); United States v. 

Luepke, 495 F.3d 443, 445, 450-52 (7th Cir. 2007). The district court did 

neither in this case. Its denial of the written motion for downward variance 

did not preclude the court’s ability to consider other factors for a downward 

variance that might have been raised during Hedary’s allocution. We thus 

cannot say that it is plain or obvious that Hedary was denied a meaningful 

opportunity to allocate. 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-10218 Document: 00513809696 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/22/2016