Opinion ID: 711056
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of Right of Allocution

Text: 162 Mr. Nash contends that the district court denied him his right of allocution. See United States v. Carper, 24 F.3d 1157, 1158, 1162 (9th Cir.1994); United States v. Medrano, 5 F.3d 1214, 1219 (9th Cir.1993). We agree. 163 In the initial phase of the sentencing hearing, the district court curtly silenced Mr. Nash, stating, I don't want you speaking to the Court unless the Court asks you a question. Nash Appendix Vol. IV, at 958. Our review of the record suggests that the timidity thereby instilled in Mr. Nash significantly hindered his later efforts at allocution. The relevant exchange between the district court and Mr. Nash went as follows: 164 The Court: ... And I will hear from defendant Nash, if he wishes, as to what would be the appropriate sentence within that range. 165 Mr. Nash: Of course, Your Honor, I would respectfully argue for the bottom of the Guidelines. 166 Is that the only issue that the Court wants to hear from me on? 167 The Court: Yes. 168 Nash Appendix Vol. IV, at 960-61. While Mr. Nash was nominally given an opportunity to speak, it is apparent from the record that he had taken the district court's admonition to heart and was consequently deterred from speaking freely. We refuse to countenance such court-inspired reticence and therefore hold that the district court denied Mr. Nash his right of allocution. The denial was not harmless because the district court had the discretion to sentence Mr. Nash to a shorter sentence. See Carper, 24 F.3d at 1162. We therefore reverse Mr. Nash's sentence and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.