F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT February25 , 2 002 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ N o. 01- 1288 0

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ D. C. Docket N o. 00-00024 -CR- SPM- 1 UNITED STAT ES of

AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us SIDNEY CARL FRAZIER, a.k .a. Sy dn ey

Oli ve r, D e f e n d an t- A ppella nt.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ (F eb ru ar y 25, 200 2) Be fo re W IL SO N , H IL L a nd F A Y , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: A ppe llant S idn ey

Carl Frazie r (" Fr az ie r" ) ap pe al s f ro m the j udgm en t of

the district court revoking his term of supervised release and sentencing him to additio nal inc ar ce ra tio n. F ra zi er

a rg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

by s en te nc ing him

f or violatin g the term s of h is supervised relea se witho ut allowing him to allocute before im posi ng the se nte nc e. S pe ci fi ca lly , Fr az ie r ar gue s that the dis tr ic t c ourt i m pr ope rl yOn Fe bruar y 24, 2001, Be verly

Slappy filed cha rg es ag ainst Fra zier for a ssault and batter y . 1 Alleg edly , Fr azier punche d Ms. Slappy in the head a

nd threw he r on the g round, punchingand kicking her se vera l times. Further , he thre atene d her w ith a tire iron and stole he r money . 2 de nie d hi m

his r igh t of

a llo cu tio n pu rs ua nt t o R ule 32 o f the F ed er al Ru le s of C r i mi n a l P r o c e du r e . We r e j e c tt h i s a r g u me n ta n da f f i rm. Fr az ie r w as or igi na lly

c onvi ct ed of poss es sin g co unt er fe it not es w iththe int en t to defraud, in violation of 18 U .S .C. § 472. On February 18, 1998 , the district court
s e n t e n c e d h i m t o 1 5 m o n t h s i m p r i s o n m e n t f

o l l o w e d b y a t h r e e y ea r te rm of supe rv ise d r el ea se . U nde r the c ondi tio ns o f the supe rv ise d re le as e, F ra zi er w as not to comm it any

feder al, state or local cr im e. Fr az ie r be ga n hi s te rm

of sup er vis ed r el ea se on D ec em

be r 1, 1998

. O n Apr il 14, 2000, the j urisdictio n of his sup ervised releas e wa s transferr ed to the Northern District of Florida. On April 6, 2001 , the probation officer , a lleging a violation o f a conditi o n o f h i s supervisio n, filed a Petition for W arrant for O ffender Under Supervision

. Specifica lly , the petition alleged that Fraz ier had com m itted aggravated
as sault a nd b at te ry . O n M ay

16, 200 1, the dis tr ic t c ourt, a ft er c ondu ct ing ahe ar ing , 1 fo und tha t F ra zi er

ha d vi ola te d th e te rm s of

his sup er vis ed r el ea se a nd c om

m itt ed him to an a ddi tio na l 24 m onths i nc ar ce ra tio n. T he re co rd is cl ear tha t pr ior to se nte nc ing the dis tr ic t cour

t did not prov ide Fr az ie r w ith an oppo rt uni ty to per sona lly

a ddr es s th e court. F razie r m ade no objection at the tim e. Where the defe ndant fails to m ake a tim ely objec tion, we reviewa district
co ur t's fai lu re t o ad dr es s a de fen da nt pe rs on al ly at se nt en ci ng fo r pl ai n erro r. United States v. G errow, 23 2 F .3d 83 1, 8 33 (11 th Cir .20 00 ), rev'd on other gr ound s, U nited3

Sta tes v . San ch ez

, 269 F. 3d 1250 (11th Cir.2001) ( en ban c ). F urthe r, thi s C ourt w ill
rem an d on ly if " m an ife st in jus ti ce" res ul ts fro m

th e o m is si on . Ge rrow, 232 F.3d at 834 (quot ing U

nit ed Sta tes v . T

am ay o, 80 F .3d 1514 , 1521 (11th Cir .1996)). A fter
re vie w ing the r ec or d, the pa rt ie s br ie fs a nd the a rg um en t of c ouns el , w e fi nd n o pl ai n
error . T his Co urt ha s no t y et ad dr es se d the que sti on of w he the r a de fe ndant h as the rig h t to allocute upo n resentencing for violating the term s of his or her supervised
re le as e. R

ule 32 o f the Fe de ra l Rul es of Cr im ina l Pr oc ed ur e spe ci fi es the pr oc es s by

w hic h a se nte nc e an d j udgm en t ar e im pose d upon a de fe ndant f oll ow ing c onvi ct ion

. Rule 32(c)(3) (C) provides a party with the right to allocute, requiring a district court to, "a ddr es s th e de fe ndant per sona lly an d dete rm ine w he the r the de fe ndant w ish es to
m ak e a st at em en t and to pr es en t any in fo rm at io n in m it ig at io n of the s e n t e n ce," before the court im

poses a sentence. Fed. R.C rim .P

. 32(c)(3)( C). E ffec tive Dec em ber 1, 198 0, Ru le 32. 1 w as a dde d to the F ed er al Ru le s of Cr im ina l P ro ce dur e. I t i s
en tit le d " Re voc at ion or

Mo dif ic at ionof

P ro ba tio n or

S upe rv ise d R el ea se , " and pr ovi de s, in pa rt , tha t a t a r ev oc at ionhe ar ing , ape rs on s ha ll be a ff or de d: (A ) w ri tte n no tic e of

the a lle ge d vi ola tio n; (B ) dis cl osur e of

the e vid en ce a ga ins t the pe rs on; (C) a n o pp or tu ni ty to ap pe ar an d t o p res en t ev id en ce i n t he pe rs on 's o wn behalf; (D ) the opp ortun ity

to que sti on a dve rs e w itn es se s; an d (E ) not ic e of

the pe rs on' s r igh t t o be r ep re se nte d by c ouns el

. Fed. R.C rim .P . 32. 1(a)( 2).4

A ppe llant u rg es us t o f

ind tha t Rul e 32. 1 inco rp or at es the pr ovi sio n of R ule 32
co nc er nin g th e ri ght

of a llo cu tio n. H e ba se s hi s a rg um en t onthe r at ion al e use d by
se ve ra l of our sis te r ci rc uit s w hich ha ve he ld tha t the r igh t of a llo cu tio n inRu le 32 ap pl ie s at su pe rv is edrel eas e rev oc at io n h eari ng s. Se e U nit ed Sta tes v . P att er

son, 128 F. 3d 1 259, 126 1 ( 8th Ci r. 1997 ) (h old ing tha t R ule 32 p ro vid es ade fe ndant w iththe ri ght to al loc ute a t su

pe rv ise d r el ea se d r ev oc at ionhe arin gs); United States v. R odri gue z, 23 F

. 3d 9 19, 921 ( 5th Ci r. 1994 ) (s am e) ; U nit ed Sta tes v. Ca rpe r, 24 F

. 3d 11 57 , 11 62 (9t h C ir.1 99 4) (sa m e). Alt ho ug h we fi nd th es e d eci si on s re as on ab le , we fi nd the c onc lus ionof

the S ixth C ir cu it in U

nit ed Sta tes v . W

ate rs, 158 F

. 3d 9 33 ( 6th Cir. 1998 ), m ore persuasive. The f ocus of the discus sion b efore us is whether Rule 3 2 .1 al so incorpo rates the a ddi tio na l pr ovisi on s of Ru le 32 i nc lud ing , but not li m ite d to , the r igh t of al loc uti on. W e thi nk n ot. T he appe llant i n W ate rs argued that the lower court err ed by f ai lin g to pr ovi de him

w itha n opportun ity

to al loc ute pr ior

to se nte nc ing f

or vi ol at in g h is su pe rv is edrel eas e. Se e id. a t 94 2. I n de ci din g th at Ru le 32. 1 do es not inc or por at e the pr ovi sio ns o f Ru le 32, the co urt no te d th at , "[ Ru le 32. 1] is sil en t w ith respect to whether a defe ndant has a right to allocute before sentence is im posed at
a re vocation h earing." Id

. a t 94 3. T he c ourt c onc lud ed tha t the r igh t of

a llocu tio n sp eci fie d i n R

ul e 3 2 d oe s n ot ap pl y

at s up erv is edrel eas e rev oc at io n hea rin gs . Se e id. at 944

. W er e w e to hol d tha t Ru le 32. 1 inc or por at es al l of the pr ovi sio ns o f Ru le 32, the se nte nc ing c ourt w oul d no t on ly ha ve to giv e the de fe ndant a r igh t t o a llo cu tio n, it would have to require presentence investigation reports along with all of the otherThis Court adopted as binding prec edent a ll decisions of the F ifth Circuit handed down pr ior 2 to October

1, 1981. See B onner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir.1981) ( en banc ). 5 de m an ds of t he rul e. Se e id. In our opi nio n, thi s w oul d r en de r Ru le 32. 1 su pe rf luo us. H ow ev er , giv enthe im

porta nc e of

a llo cu tio n, w e agr ee tha t the be tte r pr ac tic e is f or dis tr ic t c ourts t o pr ovi de de fe nd an ts w itha n op portun ity to al loc ute pr ior

to the im posit ion of a sentence based upon a vio lation of sup ervised relea se. Insug ge sti ng this pr oc ed ur e w e ar e m ind fu l of wha t we did in United States v. Ead s, 480 F

. 2d 1 31, 133 ( 5th Ci r. 1973 ). I n Eads, we sua spon te n o t e d t h a t t he 2 de fe ndant w as not gi ve n th e ri ght to al loc ute pr ior

to se nte nc ing a t a

r ev oc at ion he ari ng whi ch ter m in at edhi s t erm of p ro ba ti on . S

e e id. T he Co urt, str es sin g th e im porta nc e of

the r igh t t o a llo cu te a nd the fu nda m en ta l na tur e of suc h inthe pr oc es s of im posin g any

sentence of incar cera tion, granted the appellant the right to allocut e. A lth oughthe r igh t t o a llo cu tio n w as gr an te d to E ads, we r ec ogni ze tha t a
r e v o c a ti on of pr ob at io n is di ffer en t from th e rev oc at io n of supe rv is ed rel eas e. See W ate rs, 158 F.3 d at 943 (dist ingu ishin g sentencing for a violatio n of supervised relea se from

a probation violatio n). W e also note that Rule 32.1 was not in existence unt i l 1 9 8 0

. B e c au s e R

u l e 3 2

. 1 i s s i l e n t w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e r i g h t t o a l l o c u t e at a revocation hearing, and since Eads does not control our situatio n, th ere exists n o legal
re qui re m en t t o gr an t a

de fe ndant the r igh t t o a llo cu tio n a t a r ev oc at ionhe ar ing f

or supervised release. Consequently , F razie r's r ights we re not violated; and th us, there is no error, plain or otherwise. It does appear to us, howe ver, that this question is one that shou ld be addressed6

by the A dvi sor

y Co m m itt ee on the Fe de ra l Ru le s of Cr im ina l Pr oc ed ur e. T he r igh t
o f a l l o cu t i o n s ee m s b o t h i m p o rt an tan dfi rmly emb ed d ed i n o u r ju ri s p ru d en ce . We
sus pe ct tha t i ts o m iss ionf

ro m Ru le 32. 1 c oul d be the r es ult of asim ple ove rs igh t. In conclusion , the district court did not com m it plain error in deny ing Frazier
anopp ortun ity

to al loc ute pr ior

to im posi ng the se nte nc e be ca use the re pr es en tly exists no such requirem ent. F urther, there w as n o m an i fest in j ustice that resulted fr om the om iss ion

. T he j udgm en t of the dis tr ic t c our

t i s a ff irm ed

. AFFIR MED.