2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

2-19-2004 

# U S A v . P lott s

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al

D ocke t N o . 02-4575

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w
. v i l l a no va
. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w
. v i l l a no va
. e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . P lotts " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s
. P ape r 950. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w
. v i l l a no va
. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/950PRECE DENTI AL

UNITED STA TES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

No. 02-4575

UNITED S TATES OF AMERI CA

v.

RICHARD PLOTTS,

Appellant

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Easte rn D istrict of P enns ylvania D.C. Crim. Acti on No. 02-cr- 00020-01 (Ho nora ble S tewa rt Da lzell)

Sub mi tted Und erThi rd Ci rc ui t L AR

34.1(a) October 30, 2003

Be for e: S CIR ICA , Chief Judge , NY GA AR D a nd A M BR O, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed Febru ary 19, 2004) Ro bert E pstein Assist ant Federa l Defender Brett Sweitzer, Esq. David L. McColgin, Esq. Maureen Kearney Rowley , Esq. De fend er A ssocia tion of Philad elphia Federal Court

Divisi on Curtis Center, Independence Square W est, Suit e 540 W est Philadelphia, PA 19106
Attorney s for Appel lant

Patri ck L. Meehan U.S. Attorney, Eastern Dis tri ct of P enns ylvania Lau rie M agid Deputy U.S. Attorney Robert A. Zauzmer Assist ant U.S. Attorney Terri A. M arinari Assist ant U.S. Attorney 615 Chestnut St

reet Philadelphia, PA 19106
Attorney s for Appel lee

OPINI ON OF THE COURT

AM BR O, Circuit

Judge

Richard Plot

ts appeal s the Dist

rict Court’s de cisi on revoking s upervis ed relea se and imposi ng a sentenc e of impris onment. Because Plott s was denied the right

of all ocution at sentenci ng, we revers e and remand to t he2

Distri ct Court f

or rese ntenci ng. 1

I. Fac tual and Procedur al Backgr ound
In July 1995, Plotts was arrested in Delaware on the suspic ion of bank robbery. Shortly thereafter, a grand jury returned an indictment against Plotts, charg ing h im w ith ban k rob bery in vi ol atio n of

18 U .S .C . § 211 3( a) . H e pled guil ty to a si ngle count and recei ved a sentenc e of 80 months impri sonment followed bythree y ears supe rvise d relea se. I n February2002 (afte r servi ng his sentence and while on s upervis ed release ), respo nsibility for h is supervi sion was tr ansferr ed to the Probati on Office for the Eastern Distri ct of Pennsy lvania

.
Plott s was arres ted in November 2002 by the Pennsy lvania State Pol ice for v iolating 18 P a. Co ns. Sta t. § 6105 (fel on i n po sses sion of a fire arm ). Shortl y thereaft er, t

he Probati on Office filed a petition to revo ke Plotts’s supervi sed rel ease, a llegi ng six vi olati ons of his r elease conditi ons. The Dist rict Co urt con ducte d a rev ocatio n hea ring in December 2002. The Government pre sen ted th e tes timo ny of six w itnes ses. Plott s presented no evidence. After

cons idering the ev idenc e and argu men ts of counsel, the Dist rict Court found that Plott s had: ( 1) been in pos sessi on of a firearm; (2) eng aged in cre dit card fraud 2 ; (3) used drugs, i ncluding opiates,

on re peate d occ asion s; and (4) lied to his probation o fficer. 3 Following these findings , the Distri ct Court revoked Plott s’s supe rvise d relea se and sent enced him to 30 months i mprisonment fol lowed by 30 months supervi sed rel ease. Prior to sent encing, Plott s was not give n an opp or tu ni ty

to ad dr es s the Cou rt , know n as all ocution. He appeals, alle ging that (1) he was deni ed the ri ght of al locuti on at his release revoc ation hearing b efore sentence was imposed, and ( 2) the Distri ct Court i mproperly treated a charged Grade C viol ation a s a Grade A violat ion for s entenci ng purposes ( thus increasing his sen tence). 4

1 In it s brie f, the Government st ates it does not o ppo se rese ntenc ing in th is

case. We comm end the Unit ed State s Atto rney’s Office for i ts candor and pr ofe ss io nal is m. 2 While w e are unaware of any form al crimina l charge s agains t Plotts for credit card fraud, he adm itted to h is paro le office r using anoth er indiv idual’s credit card for an unauthori zed purpose.

3 On appeal , Pl ot ts and t he Government present

differe nt vers ions of the facts and circumst an ces surr ounding the revo c ation of

his supervised r elease

. Wh ile this may be an ar ea for the District Cou rt to explore on resen tencin g, it is irrele van t to o ur re solu tion of th is ca se.

4 We have jurisdictio n pu rsuan t t o 28 U.S.C. § 1291.3

II. St andard of Review

As P lotts failed to pres erve h is obj ec ti ons at

th e r ev oc atio n he ar in g, we review the decision of the District Cou rt for plain erro r. Uni te d St at es v. Adams , 252 F.3d 276 , 279 ( 3d C ir. 2001 ); see also Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b ). Un der p lain

error re view , we m ay grant re lief if (1) the District Court

committed a n “error ,” (2) it w as “p lain,” an d (3) it affected “ substant

ial rights ” of the def end ant. United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 732 ( 1993). “A deviation fr om a legalrule i s [an] ‘ error .’” United States v. Ru ssell , 134 F.3d 171, 180 (3d Cir. 1998) (ci tati on omitt ed). I t is “plai n” when “‘clear ’ or ‘obvi ous.’ ” Id. (cit ation omitt ed). I n order for

an error to affect “substantialright s,” i t must have be en “prejudicial”; in other words, “it must have affect ed the out come of the dis tri ct court pr oceedings. ” Olano , 507 U.S. at 734. If t hese requi rements are sati sfied,

we shou ld exe rcise o ur disc retion to gran t relief if th e error “‘serio usly affe cts the fai rness, integrity

or publi c reputation of judic ial proceedings. ’” Id. at 736 (citation om itted); see also Adams , 252 F.3d at 284- 85.

III. A naly sis

We conclude that

a crimi nal defe ndan t’s right o f alloc ution e xtend s to relea se revocat

ion heari ngs. Because t he Distric t Cou rt com mitted plain e rror in denying Plotts’s rig ht, we rema nd th is case for resentenc ing. 5

5 Plott s also argues t he District Co urt committed plain error b y mi scharacterizi ng a Grade C violation, unauthori zed use of a cred it card, as a Grade A violati on for sent encing p urpose s. As resent encing i s grant ed on the ground that alloc ution was im pr ope rl y de ni ed , w e decli ne to entert ain thi s alt ernati ve argu men t. We note, howev er, t hat the

re voc ation petit

ion fil ed by t

he Probati on Office w ith the District Court alleges a Grade C violation. I n its brief, the Government conced es that Plotts’s acti ons do not co nstitute a Grade A violation, but inst ead insi sts t

hey s hould be Grade B (not Grade C). Because t

he peti tion already alle ges a Grade A violation (posses sion of

a firearm), Plotts w oul d suf fer little prejudi ce if, prior t o resent encing, the Probati on Of fice w ere to ame nd the viol ation grade ass ign ed to hi s unauthori zed use of a cred it car d. See U.S. Sentenci ng Guideline s Manual § 7B1.4(a) (li sti ng the suggested impriso nment ran ges for Grades A, B and C violations ). Un til revis ed by the Probation Off ice, how ever, these actions r ema in as initia ll y charact erize d, a G rad e C vio latio n. See gene rally 18 U.S.C. § 3603(2) (stating t hat it is the dutyof the probation off icer to be

aware of the conditions of su p ervis ed release and to repor

t to t he sentenc ing court conduct which mayvi ola te those terms); U.S. S entenci ng Guideline s Manual § 7B 1.2 (sa me); see also Fed . R. Cri m. P. 3 2.1(b )(2)(A ) (requ iring tha t a defendantat a re vocati on hearing receive4

The rule i n our Circui t is that denying the righ t of allo cution (at least in senten cing h earing s) will g enera lly result in re sen tenc ing und er p lain e rror r evie w. Adams , 252 F.3 d at 2 89. Rule 32(i) (4)(A)( ii) of the Feder al Rules of Crim inal Proced ure states a cou rt must, before imposing sentence, “address the de fend ant pe rsona lly in order to permit t he defendant to speak or pr esent any i nformati on to mitigate the sentence .” In Adams , we concluded t he Distri ct Court i n that c ase committed an “error ” that w as “p lain” b y failing to addr ess the defe ndan t perso nally prior to senten cing. 2 52 F .3d at 2 86. W ith regard to the “affects substantial ri ghts” por ti on o f the pl ai n e rr oran al y si s, we inter preted Olano as requi ring “t he defendant t o make a specifi c showing of prejudi ce, unl ess he can s how that the

error should be pr esumed prejudi cial , or that t he error belongs i n a specia l category of er

rors t hat shoul d be corrected regardl ess of pre judice ( i.e

. , the category of s truct

ural er rors) .” Id. at 285-86. Pr ejudic e should be pr esumed, however, when a defendant shows the violat ion of a ri ght could “ have play ed a role i n the dis tri ct court ’s sentencing decisi on.” Id. at 287. We also stated that violatio n of the righ t of allo cution could playa role i n a court’ s sente ncing decisi on whenever ther e exist s any dispu ted fa cts in co nnec tion w ith sentenci ng or any defense argument s that might reduc e the appl icabl e guidel ine

ran ge o r ultim ate s ente nce

. Id. All of this is ba sed o n the b elief tha t a defendant i s often hi s most pers uasive and eloq uen t adv oca te. Id. at 288.

While not cons tit

utional , the right of allo cution is “anc ient in o rigin, an d it is the ty pe of import ant safe guard that helps as sure the fairness, and hence, legit imacy , of the sentenci ng process. ” Id. Ac cord ingly, we conc luded in Adams that de nial of

alloc ution at

the defe ndan t’s sente ncing hearin g w as plain

erro r an d w arra nted rese nten cing

. Id. at 288-89.

We have n ot ruled w hether a defe ndan t’s right o f alloc ution e xtend s to a revocation heari ng. The FederalRules of CriminalProcedure fai l to def ine exp licitly the sco pe o f allo cutio n rig hts. Almost every

circui t court

to consi der the issue, however, has r

uled that all ocution must be permi tted be fore imposi tion of sentence at a supervised r elease (or par ole) rev oca tion hea ring

. See United States v. Reyna , No. 01-41164, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 1134 (5th Cir . Jan. 26, 2004) (en banc) 6 ; Un ited S tates v.

“written notice of the allege d vio lati on ”). On resen tencin g, the D istrict Co urt sho uld consider the effect, if any , of its al leged mischarac teri zati on in the f irst inst ance. 6 The Reyna Court approvedof the

plain error

analy sis i n Adams , inc luding the conclusi on that prejudic e should b e presumed wh en vio lation o f a righ t could hav e affected a

court’ s sente nci n g decisi on. 2004 U.S. Ap p. L EX IS a t *1 6.5

Wa ters , 158 F.3d 933, 944 -45 (6th C ir. 199 8); United States v. Patters on , 128 F.3d 12 59, 1260 -61 (8th C ir. 1997); United States v. Rodri guez , 23 F.3d 919, 921 (5th C ir. 1994 ); United States v. Carper , 24 F.3d 1 157, 116 0-62 (9th C ir. 199 4); United States v. Barnes , 948 F.2d 325, 329 -30 (7th C ir. 1991). 7 In li ght of our previ ouslyexpresse d views in Adams on th e imp ortanc e of a llocutio n, and in relianc e on th e w ell-reaso ned o pinion s in other c ircuits, w e too c onclu de tha t a defe ndan t’s right o f alloc ution e xtend s to

rev oca tion hea ring s.

For simi lar r easons, we conclude that the District Court’s err or in this case was “plain. ” An error maybe clear or obv io us abse ntcon tr ol li ng Su pr eme Co urt o r Th ird C ircu it pre ced ent. United States v. Evans , 155 F.3d 245, 251-52 (3d Cir. 1998). I n such a case, decisi ons fro m o ther circu it cou rts ar e ins truc tive. See United States v. Barbosa , 271 F.3d 438, 456 (3d Cir. 200 1) (rel yi ng on prev ious d ecision s of tw o circu it courts in findi ng plain e rror) . In Pl otts ’s case , the w eight o f app ellate au thority discuss ed above is s uffici ent to render the Dist rict Court’s e rror c lear a nd T he Fifth Circuit, however , disagr eed with Adams so mew hat as to when an ap pellate c ourt sh ould exerc ise its discr etion in corr ecti ng a plain error. In Adams , we stated wit ho u t quali fication that denial of the ri ght of al locuti on affe cts the “fairness, integrity

or publi c reputation of judic ial proceedings. ” 252 F.3d at288 (c it ation and qu otations om itted). In contrast , the Fift

h Circuit concluded that “[i]n a limi ted clas s of cases , a revi ew of the record mayreveal , despi te the presence of d isput ed sentenc ing is sues, that t he violat ion of a d efen dant’s right to alloc ution does not v iolate the last Olano prong. This case i s a goo d ex am ple.” Reyna , 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS at *19. We are bound, howeve r , to fol low Ada ms , and it c arves out n o exc eptio n o n its fa ce. Further , the Reyna exception is, by its own terms , limited; in deed , the Fif th Circu it conc luded that rese ntenc ing is “o rd in ar ily” req uire d. Id. at *2 2. Reyna, for example, ha d appeared bef or e the s ame judge three t

imes, twice for vi olati on s of the ter ms of his supervised r elease

. Alth ou gh Reyna di d not have the opp ortun ity to allocute at his most recent

revocation hea ring, he “had the opportuni ty to all ocute both at his origi nal sentenci ng and when resentenc ed following his fi rst vi olati on of supe r vised relea se.” I d. a t *2 0. Reyna is thus distinguis hable. 7 Although the El ev en th Circuit’s decisi on in United States v. Fr azier , 283 F.3d 124 2 ( 11th Cir. 20 02), ap pears to support the posi tion t

hat al locuti on is not requir ed at a rev ocatio n hea ring, th i s opinion was later

vac ated

. 324 F.3d 1224 (11th Cir. 20 03). T he on ly other circ uit court to end orse th e initial po sition in Frazier is the Tenth Circui t in an unpublis hed dec ision

. See United States v. Fen nell , 986 F.2d 1430, 1992 WL 401587 (10 th C ir. 19 92)

.6

obv iou s.
Based upon Adams , we also conclude that prej udice t o “substantial rights” may be presumed in this case because al locuti on could have pl ayed a role in th e C our t’s se nten cing dec ision

. 252 F.3d at 287. First , the re exis ts no stat utoryminimum term of i mprisonment upo n re voc ation of s upe rvise d re leas e. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e )(3) ( permitt ing imprisonm ent for “all or part” o f the term of d efen dant’s supe rvised release ); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h) . Second, even though Plotts’s 30-month added pri son term was the l owest sent ence withi n the recommended Guideli nes Manual range of 30 to 37 months, the Court ha d discr etion to impose an even l ower senten ce, as th e revo cation prov isions in the Guidel ines ar e advisory pol icy state me nts a nd n ot b ind ing

. See United States v. Schwegal , 126 F.3d 551, 554-55 (3d Cir . 199 7).

Finall y, denial of the ri ght of alloc ution “i s not the sort of ‘is olate d’ or ‘abstract’ error

that we might

determi ne does not i mpact the ‘ fairne ss, i ntegri ty or public reputation of judi cial proceedi ngs.’ ” Adams , 252 F.3d at 288 (cit ation omi tted) . As such, this is an appropri ate cas e in which t o grant r elie f.

* * * * *

We reverse and r emand to the Distri ct Court f

or rese ntenci ng.