# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 4- 35 67

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Howar d M at th ew Fl eet woo d

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa - Des M oi ne s

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: May 11, 2 01 5
Fil ed : J ul y

27 , 20 15

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , MURPHY an d M ELLOY, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
RILEY, Chi ef J ud ge

.

Afte r Howar d Fl eet woo d ad m it te d

, t h ro ug h co un se l, to vi ol at in g cert ai n

co nd it i o n s o f th e su pe rv is ed rel eas e he was se rv in g fo r fai li ng to reg is te r as a se x
of fen de r, se e 18 U.S.C. § 22 50

, th e di st ric t co ur t rev ok ed Fl eet woo d ’s su pe rv is ed 1

The Hon or ab le Jo hn A

. Ja rv ey be cam e Ch ie f Ju dg e of th e Uni te d St at es 1

Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa on Marc h 1 , 20 15

.rel eas e an d se nt en ced hi m to twe l v e m on th s im pr is on m en t to be se rv ed —as

Fl eet woo d req ue st ed

—co nc ur ren tl y wit h hi s st at e se nt en ce fo r as sa ul ti ng two po li ce

of fic ers

. At Fl eet woo d’s rev oc at io n he ari ng , th e di st ric t co ur t ad dr es se d Fl eet woo d

di rect ly onl y

to ad vi se hi m

of h is rig ht to ap pe al . Flee two od ne ve r sp ok e.

Fl eet woo d no w ap pe al s th e jud gm en t an d se nt en ce, arg ui ng “ th e di st ric t co ur t

vi ol at ed [Fed eral Ru le of Cri m in al Pro ced ur e] 32 .1(b )(2 )(E) by fai li ng to pe rs on al ly

ad dr es s [Fl eet woo d] an d acco rd hi m th e rig ht to m ak e a st at em en t pr io r to im po si ti on

of th e r e v o c a t i on se nt en ce.” Bec au se Fl eet woo d fai le d to rai se th is is su e at th e

rev oc at io n he ari ng , th e pa rti es ag ree we rev ie w fo r pl ai n erro r. See Uni te d St at es v.

Ro be rts on , 53 7 F.3 d 85 9, 86 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ); Uni te d St at es v. Pi ran i, 40 6 F.3 d 54 3,

54 9 (8t h Cir. 20 05 ) (en ba nc ) (“ Erro rs no t pro pe rly pr es erv ed are rev ie wed on ly fo r pl ai n erro r un de r Ru le 52 (b ) of th e Fed eral Ru le s of Cri m in al Pro ced ur e.”). To

pr ev ai l, Fl eet woo d “ m

us t sh ow an erro r th at is cl ear or ob vi ou s un de r cu rren t la w, an d

he m us t de m on st rat e th at t h e erro r affe ct ed hi s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s an d se rio us ly

affe ct ed th e fai rn es s, in te gr it y , or rep ut at io n of t h e ju di ci al pr oc eed in gs .” Uni te d

St at es v. Hin ke ld ey , 62 6 F.3 d 10 10

, 10 12 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). “ In th e se nt en ci ng co nt ex t,

an erro r is pr ejud ic ia l [to a de fen da nt ’s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s] on ly if th e de fen da nt pr ov es

a reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y th at he wou ld ha ve rece iv ed a li gh te r se nt en ce bu t fo r th e

erro r.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Mo ln ar, 5 90 F.3d 91 2, 9 15 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0)

.

Ru le 32 .1(b )(2 )(E) pr ov id es th at a pe rs on su bjec t to rev oc at io n fo r al le ge dl y
vi ol at in g a co nd it io n of su pe rv is ed rel eas e “ is en ti tl ed to

. . . an op po rtu ni ty to m ak e

a st at em en t an d pr es en t an y in fo rm at io n in m it ig at io n.” Alt ho ug h he co nc ed es “ [t]he

l a ng ua ge of th e ru le

. . . i s ad m it te dl y a bi t lo os e on th e po in t,” Fl eet woo d ur ge s u s

to “ joi n t he ot he r ci rcu it s in in te rp ret in g R ul e 3 2.1 (b )(2 )(E) as req ui rin g t he di st ric t

co ur t to pe rs on al ly ad dr es s th e de fen da nt reg ard in g hi s or he r r i g h t t o m ak e a

st at em en t pr io r to im

po si ti on of a rev oc at io n se nt en ce.” See, e

. g

. , Uni te d St at es v.

Dan ie ls , 7 60 F.3 d 92 0, 92 4 (9 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (“ Ru le 32 .1(b )(2 )(E) req ui res a co ur t to

ad dr es s a su pe rv is ed rel eas ee pe rs on al ly to as k if he wan ts to sp eak be fo re th e co ur t

-2

-im

po se s a po st -rev oc at io n se nt en ce”) ; Uni te d St at es v. Gon zal ez, 52 9 F.3 d 94

, 97 (2 d

Ci r. 20 08 ); Uni te d St at es v. Carr ut h, 52 8 F

. 3 d 8 45

, 84 6- 47 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 08 ) (p er

c u r i a m); Uni te d St at es v. Pi tre

, 50 4 F.3 d 65 7, 66 2 (7 th Ci r. 20 07 ). Bu t cf

. U n i t e d

St at es v. Raus ch

, 63 8 F.3d 12 96

, 13 00 -0 1 (10 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (rec og ni zi ng “ Ru le 32 .1

. . . do es no t m en ti on an y th in g ab ou t th e co ur t ad dr es si ng th e de fen da nt pe rs on al ly,”

bu t de cl in in g to de ci de th e is su e be cau se th e de fen da nt fai le d to es ta bl is h pl ai n erro r).

W e ha ve pr ev io us ly co ns id ered a cri m in al de fen da nt ’s rig ht to “ an op po rtu ni ty

to ” al lo cu te un de r Ru le 32 .1(b )(2 )(E)— as di st in ct fro m a s e n te nc in g co ur t’s

ob li ga ti on to “ ad dr es s th e d e f e n d a nt pe rs on al ly in or de r to pe rm it th e de fen da nt to

sp eak or pr es en t an y in fo rm at io n to m it ig at e th e se nt en ce” u n d e r F e d e r al Ru le of

Cri m in al Pro ced ur e 32 (i) (4 )(A)(i i). See Rob ert so n, 53 7 F.3d at 86 2. In Ro be rts on ,

we ob se rv ed th at “ [d ]esp it e th is si gn ifi can t te xt ua l di ffer en ce,” th e co ur ts in Carr ut h

an d Pi tre “ he ld th at th e two ru le s crea te an id en ti cal rig ht to al lo cu ti on .” Id

. Bu t we

“ co ns id er[e d] th [o ]se de c i s io ns su sp ect be cau se th ey were ba se d in la rg e pa rt on

fla wed reas on in g” de riv ed fro m an in co rrec t in te rp ret at io n of an ou td at ed ve rs io n of

Ru le 32 ap pl ie d in Green v. U n i te d St at es , 36 5 U.S. 30 1, 30 3 n.1 (1 96 1) (p lu ral it y

op in io n) . Rob ert so n, 5 37 F.3d at 8 62 & n .2.

In Ro be rts on , d e sp it e reg is te rin g ou r do ub t ab ou t Carr ut h an d Pi tre an d

qu es ti on in g whe th er th e pl ai n la ng ua ge of Ru le 32 .1(b )(2 )(E) ob li ga te s a se nt en ci ng

co ur t to ad vi se th e de fen da nt of hi s al lo cu ti on rig ht an d in vi te h i m t o mak e a

st at em en t, we de cl in ed to de fin it iv el y de ci de th e p aram et ers of a de fen da nt ’s rig ht s

un de r Ru le 32 .1(b )(2 )(E). See id

. at 86 2. In st ead

, we “ as su m e[d ] wit ho ut de ci di ng 2

Reg ard le ss of whe th er Ru le 32 .1(b )(2 )(E) re qu ir es a se nt en ci ng co ur t to ta ke 2

su ch affi rm at iv e st ep s to ad vi se a de f e n d a n t pe rs on al ly of hi s al lo cu ti on rig ht s,
pr ud en ce co un se ls “ th e be tt er pr a c t i c e i n se nt en ci ng is to as su re th e de fen da nt ” is

aware of hi s op po rtu ni ty to al lo cu te an d ha s rece iv ed “ an ex pr e s s o p p o r t un it y to

sp eak for hi m se lf, i n ad di ti on to an y th in g t ha t h is lawyer m ay ha ve to say.” Green

, 36 5 U.S. at 30 6 (St ewart

, J., co nc ur rin g) ; se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Grig gs , 43 1 F.3 d

-3

-th at th e Ru le at le as t req ui res th e d i s t r i c t c o ur t, at so m e po in t du rin g a rev oc at io n

he ari ng , to ad dr es s th e de fen da nt pe rs on al ly an d m ak e it cl ear he ha s a rig ht ‘to m ak e

a st at em en t an d pr es en t a n y in fo rm at io n in m it ig at io n.’” Id

. (q uo ti ng Ru le

32 .1(b )(2 )(E)). W e th en co nc l u d ed th at ev en if th e Ro be rts on se nt en ci ng co ur t

“ co m m it [te d] a Ru le 32 .1(b )(2 )(E) erro r,” it “ was n ot pl ai n.” Id

. at 86 3; acco rd

Rau sc h, 63 8 F.3 d at 13 01 (d ecl in in g to de ci de whe th er th e se nt en ci ng co ur t erre d in

ap pl y in g Ru le 32 .1(b )(2 )(E) “ be cau se it is cl ear t ha t ev en if th e di st ric t co ur t erre d,

th e erro r d[ id ] no t se rio us ly affe ct th e f a i r n e s s, in te gr it y , or pu bl ic rep ut at io n of
jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs ”).

W e rea ch th e sa m e res ul t here

. Eve n if we as su m e (1 ) th e di st ric t cou rt erred

in fai li ng to ad dr es s Fl eet woo d pe rs on al ly an d ex pr es sl y of fer hi m an op po rtu ni ty to

m ak e a st at em en t be fo re im po si ng hi s rev oc at io n se nt en ce, an d (2 ) su ch a req ui rem en t

was “ cl ear or o b vi ou s un de r cu rren t la w,” Fl eet woo d ha s no t sh own an y su ch erro r

“ affe ct ed hi s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s an d se rio us ly affe c t e d th e fai rn es s, in te gr it y , or

rep ut at io n o f th e jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs .” Hin ke ld ey , 62 6 F .3d at 1 01 2.

Wh e n g i ve n th e op po rtu ni ty to ad dr es s th e di st ric t co ur t at th e rev oc at io n
he ari ng , F le et woo d’s co un se l di d no t req ue s t a lo wer se nt en ce, in st ead on ly as ki ng

th at Fl eet woo d’s rev oc at io n se nt en c e r u n c on cu rren tl y wit h hi s st at e se nt en ce.

Fl eet woo d’s co un se l ack no wled ge d fu rth er su pe rv is io n was not onl y “ ne ce ssar y ,” bu t

th at a res id en ti al re-e nt ry faci li ty wou ld be “ go od ” to he lp Fl eet woo d ge t “ on hi s feet

an d ge t go in g” up on rel eas e. Ho n o r i ng Fl eet woo d’s req ue st s th ro ug h co un se l, th e
d is tri ct co ur t se nt en ced Fl eet woo d to a co nc ur ren t twel ve -m on th se nt en ce an d

im po se d th e st at ut or y m in im um fiv e y ear s of su pe rv is ed rel eas e req ui red by 18 U.S.C.
§ 3 58 3( k) —b eg in ni ng wit h re si de nc e at a res id en ti al re-e nt ry cen te r.

11 10

, 11 14 -1 5 (8 th Cir

. 2005 ) (e m phasi zi ng —i n th e ab se nc e of rev ers ib le erro r—t ha t

a se nt en ci ng co ur t co ul d be st “ pr ot ect a de fen da nt ’s rig ht s an d

. . . av oi d un ne ces sa ry
ap pe al s” by un am

bi gu ou sl y ad dr es si ng hi m pe rs on al ly an d al lo win g hi m to sp eak an d

pr es en t m it ig at io n e vi de nc e b efo re s en te nc in g a s re qu ire d b y Ru le 32 ).

-4

-Hav in g es se nt ia ll y rece iv ed th e se nt en ce he req ue st ed

, Fl eet woo d ha s fai le d to

pr es en t an y ev id en ce on ap pe al “ pr ov [in g] a r e as on ab le pr ob ab il it y th at he wou ld

ha ve rece iv ed a li gh te r se nt en ce,” Mo l n ar, 59 0 F.3 d at 91 5, if th e di st ric t co ur t ha d

as ke d hi m to m ak e a pe rs on al st at em en t be fo re se nt en ci ng

. In de ed

, be y on d a va gu e

refe ren ce in hi s ap pe ll at e br ie f to pr op er pu ni sh m en t, pl acemen t

, an d

tre at m en t— su bjec ts th or ou gh ly co ve red by hi s co un se l at th e rev oc at io n he ari ng an d

refl ect ed in hi s se nt en ce— Fl eet woo d fai l s “t o s e t fo rth wha t he wou ld ha ve sa id to

th e di st ric t co ur t pr io r to se nt en ci ng th at m ig ht ha ve m it ig at ed hi s se nt en ce.” Rau sc h,

63 8 F.3 d at 13 02 ; acco rd U n i t e d St at es v. Mag woo d, 44 5 F.3 d 82 6, 83 0 (5 th Ci r.

20 06 ) (d en y in g reli ef on pl ai n erro r rev ie w be cau se th e de fen da nt fai le d to “ fu rn is h

an y in fo rm at io n ab ou t wha t he wou ld ha ve al lo cu te d to th at m ig ht ha ve m it ig at ed hi s

se nt en ce” an d di d “ no t ch al le ng e hi s s e n t e nc e,” bu t “ si m pl y ch al le ng e[d ] th e faci al

vi ol at io n o f hi s ri gh t t o a ll oc ut e”).

Bec au se Fl eet woo d ha s no t es ta bl is he d pl ai n erro r, we affi rm th e se nt en ce an d
jud gm en t.

MURP HY, Circ ui t J ud ge , con cu rri ng

.

W hi le I co nc ur in th e co ur t’s op in io n, I writ e se pa rat el y be cau se I be li ev e it is

be tt er pr act ic e fo r a se nt en ci ng jud ge to m ak e it cl ear to th e de fen da nt th at he or sh e

ha s a pe rs on al op po rtu ni ty to m ak e a st at em en t befo re the im po si ti on of a se nt en ce.

Fi ve ci rcu it s ha ve ad op te d su ch a ru le fo r su pe rv is ed rel eas e se nt en ci ng pr oc eed in gs ,

reas on in g th at Fed eral Ru le of Cri m in al Pro ced ur e 32 .1(b )(2 )(E) “ req ui res a co ur t to

ad dr es s a su pe rv is ed rel eas ee pe rs on al ly to as k if he wan ts to sp eak be fo re th e co ur t

im po se s a po st -rev oc at io n se nt en ce.” Uni te d St at es v. Dan ie ls

, 76 0 F.3 d 92 0, 92 4
(9 th Ci r. 20 14 ); se e Uni te d St at es v. Gon zal ez, 52 9 F.3 d 94

, 97 (2 d Ci r. 20 08 ); Uni te d

St at es v. Carr ut h, 52 8 F.3 d 84 5, 84 6- 47 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 08 ) (p er cu ria m ); Uni te d St at es
v. Pi tre , 50 4 F .3d 65 7, 6 62 (7t h C ir. 2 00 7)

.

-5

-W he n a jud ge ad dr es se s a de fen da n t p e r s o n a l ly an d as ks if he or sh e ha s

an y th in g to sa y be f

o r e t he co ur t act s, th at in di vi du al is gi ve n a cl ear op po rtu ni ty t o

sp eak

. Not on ly is it a be tt er pr act ic e to pr ov id e su ch an op po rtu ni ty, bu t ex pe rie nc e

s h o w s th at su ch a st at em en t can oc cas io na ll y m ak e a di ffer en ce in th e act ua l
jud gm en t pro no un ced as op po se d to a te nt at iv e se nt en ce pr ep ared in ad va nc e of th e
he ari ng

. Su ch an op po rtu ni ty to sp eak “ en ha nc [es a de fen da nt ’s] di gn it y ” an d

“ pr ov id es of

fen de rs th e op po rtu ni ty to co nt es t an y di sp ut ed fact ua l ba se s fo r

se nt en ci ng and pe rs ua de th e jud ge to ch oo se a fav or ed se nt en ce al te rn at iv e.” Dan ie ls

, 76 0 F.3 d at 92 4 (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. A st at em en t by th e de fen da nt can pr ov id e a

se nt en ci ng jud ge “ m or e in fo rm at io n on whi ch to ba se it s se nt e n c e , ” i d

. , as well as
cl ari fy th e is su es whi ch th e di st ric t co ur t m ay wan t to ad dr es s. Mo r e o ve r, su ch a

pr act ic e can als o a id in rev ie w of a sen te nc e o n a pp eal

.

Si nc e Fl eet woo d has no t sh own pl ai n erro r in th is cas e, ho wev er, I ag ree th at

th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t s ho ul d b e aff irmed.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-6

-