[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 18-10910

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 9:17-cr-80200-RLR-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE CASTRO FLORES-REDONDO, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(August 20, 2018)

Before MARCUS, ROSENBAUM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 18-10910 Date Filed: 08/20/2018 Page: 1 of 4 
2

Jose Flores-Redondo appeals his 21-month sentence, imposed at the high 

end of the guideline range, for illegal reentry after being previously removed under 

8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). On appeal, Flores-Redondo argues that the district court 

committed plain error when it failed to personally inform him, during his 

sentencing hearing, that he had a right to allocution. The government concedes 

that the court committed plain error.

We review the district court’s denial of a defendant’s right to allocution 

under the plain error standard when the defendant did not object at sentencing. 

United States v. George, 872 F.3d 1197, 1206–07 (11th Cir. 2017). Under plain 

error review, the defendant must show (1) an error (2) that was plain and 

(3) affected the defendant’s substantial rights. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 

725, 732–36 (1993). An error is not plain unless it is obvious and clear under 

current law. United States v. Dortch, 696 F.3d 1104, 1114 (11th Cir. 2012). When 

these factors are met, we may exercise our discretion and correct the error if it 

“seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial 

proceedings.” Olano, 507 U.S. at 736 (quotations and alteration omitted). Under 

the prior panel precedent rule, this Court is bound to follow its binding precedent 

unless it is overruled by the Court sitting en banc or by the Supreme Court. United 

States v. Vega–Castillo, 540 F.3d 1235, 1236 (11th Cir. 2008).

Case: 18-10910 Date Filed: 08/20/2018 Page: 2 of 4 
3

Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(4)(A)(ii), the district court must, during 

sentencing, “address the defendant personally in order to permit the defendant to 

speak or present any information to mitigate the sentence.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 

32(i)(4)(A)(ii). 

We have found plain error in cases where the district court failed to 

personally address the defendant regarding his right to allocution and instead 

addressed the defendant’s attorney. United States v. Perez, 661 F.3d 568, 584–86 

(11th Cir. 2011); United States v. Machado, 886 F.3d 1070, 1086–87 (11th Cir. 

2018). In Perez, we held that the district court committed plain error when it 

directed the question, “will the defendant be allocuting?” to the defendant’s 

attorney, rather than the defendant himself. Perez, 661 F.3d at 584. Similarly, in 

Machado, we determined that the court committed plain error when it asked 

counsel if Machado wished to allocute, and counsel, without conferring with 

Machado, declined allocution. Machado, 886 F.3d at 1087. Further, we have

found prejudice where the defendant was not afforded the right to allocution and 

was not sentenced at the low end of his advisory guideline range. Machado, 886 

F.3d at 1087; Perez, 661 F.3d at 586. Finally, when the defendant shows 

prejudice, we presume that the defendant also satisfies the final element of the 

plain error standard, because “allocution plays a central role in the sentencing 

Case: 18-10910 Date Filed: 08/20/2018 Page: 3 of 4 
4

process.” United States v. Doyle, 857 F.3d 1115, 1118 (11th Cir. 2017); Perez, 

661 F.3d at 586 (quotations omitted).

The district court plainly erred when it failed to personally address FloresRedondo and inform him of his right to allocution. George, 872 F.3d at 1206–07; 

Olano, 507 U.S. at 732–36. Specifically, the court committed an error that was 

plain when it (1) only spoke to defense counsel regarding allocution, and 

(2) defense counsel stated that Flores-Redondo had waived his right to allocution. 

Machado, 886 F.3d at 1087; Vega–Castillo, 540 F.3d at 1236. Further, FloresRedondo was prejudiced by this error, because he was not afforded the right to 

allocution, and he was sentenced at the high end of the guideline range. Perez, 661 

F.3d at 586; Machado, 886 F.3d at 1087. Finally, because the first three elements 

of the plain-error test are met, we presume that the court’s plain error “seriously 

affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Olano, 

507 U.S. at 736 (quotations and alteration omitted); Doyle, 857 F.3d at 1118. 

Accordingly, the district court committed plain error when it failed to personally 

address Flores-Redondo regarding his right to allocution, and we vacate and 

remand for allocution and resentencing. 

VACATED AND REMANDED. 

Case: 18-10910 Date Filed: 08/20/2018 Page: 4 of 4