Opinion ID: 184114
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Lanning's allocution

Text: Rule 32(i)(4)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that before imposing a sentence, the district court must address the defendant personally in order to permit the defendant to speak or present any information to mitigate the sentence. Lanning challenges his sentence on the ground that he was not properly afforded this opportunity. If a defendant objects at sentencing to some limitation on his or her right of allocution, that claim is reviewed de novo. United States v. Carter, 355 F.3d 920, 926 n. 3 (6th Cir.2004). In the present case, after Lanning's request to readdress the court was denied, he asked if he could at least straighten out a fact. This follow-up request was also denied. Because Lanning indicate[d] some type of discontent regarding his inability to readdress the court, we will review de novo his objection to his allocution. See id. Allocution is the right to present a defendant's plea in mitigation and is not unlimited. Id. at 926 (emphasis and citation omitted). In United States v. Bowker, 372 F.3d 365 (6th Cir.2004), the defendant engaged in a lengthy allocution that questioned his alleged criminal history, addressed various aspects of his trial, and called on his mother to testify. Id. at 393, vacated in part on other grounds, 543 U.S. 1182, 125 S.Ct. 1420, 161 L.Ed.2d 181 (2005) (vacating this court's opinion in part in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005)). But the district court denied the defendant's further request to read a 15-page statement into the record. Id. This court determined that, [b]ased on the totality of the circumstances, we see no merit to Bowker's argument that he was denied the right of allocution. Id. As in Bowker, the district court here afforded Lanning ample time for allocution that covered a variety of topics. The court also asked Lanning questions during his allocution. Then, before Lanning concluded, the court asked him if there was anything else that he would like to say. Lanning declined the offer. Moreover, Lanning has not pointed to any case holding that a defendant was denied a proper allocution because he or she was not allowed the last word in rebuttal to the government's argument. We conclude that Lanning was not denied his right of allocution when the district court refused to allow him to readdress the court after the government rested. Lanning also claims that the district court erred in refusing to allow him to readdress the court because the court must rely only on reliable evidence at sentencing and [a] sentence may not be imposed on the basis of material misinformation. (Emphasis omitted.) But in the two cases that Lanning cites in support of this argument, United States v. Brika, 487 F.3d 450 (6th Cir.2007), and Roberts v. United States, 445 U.S. 552, 100 S.Ct. 1358, 63 L.Ed.2d 622 (1980), the respective defendant pointed to specific information that he claimed the sentencing court should not have relied on. Brika, 487 F.3d at 457-58; Roberts, 445 U.S. at 556-57, 100 S.Ct. 1358. Here, however, Lanning does not set forth any fact that he was denied the opportunity to straighten out. Absent such specificity, the district court cannot be said to have based Lanning's sentence on unreliable evidence or material misinformation.