Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03654/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03654-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marlin Lynn Brown
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3654

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Marlin Lynn Brown, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: June 15, 2006

 Filed: June 16, 2006

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Marlin Lynn Brown appeals the district court1

 order denying his resentencing

motion. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

Brown was sentenced in March 2004 to 346 months in prison, the bottom of

the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range, after a jury found him guilty of armed

bank robbery, brandishing a firearm, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. We

affirmed on direct appeal. See United States v. Brown, 408 F.3d 1049, 1050-52 (8th

Appellate Case: 05-3654 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/16/2006 Entry ID: 2057348
-2-

Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (rejecting challenges to suppression ruling and sufficiency of

evidence, deferring ineffective-assistance claims, and rejecting sentencing challenges

related to Brown’s prior convictions). In June 2005, Brown filed this “petition for

resentencing based on judicial error,” asserting he was denied an opportunity to speak

on his own behalf at his sentencing hearing. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(4)(A)(ii). 

The district court acknowledged that at the sentencing hearing, Brown was told

he would have the opportunity to speak on his own behalf, but later he was not asked

if he wanted to speak. Nevertheless, the court found that because Brown did not raise

the allocution issue on direct appeal, his only option was to raise it collaterally, and

the failure to allow allocution was not a constitutional error that could be raised by

collateral attack. We agree. See Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 426-28 (1962)

(“failure of a trial court to ask a defendant represented by an attorney whether he has

anything to say before sentence is imposed is not of itself an error of the character or

magnitude cognizable under a writ of habeas corpus,” and “[i]t is an error which is

neither jurisdictional nor constitutional”; sentencing court’s failure to afford

opportunity for allocution is neither fundamental defect which inherently results in

complete miscarriage of justice, nor omission inconsistent with rudimentary demands

of fair procedure).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

________________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3654 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/16/2006 Entry ID: 2057348