Opinion ID: 171565
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the Issue Was Preserved On Allocution

Text: For his part, the defendant argues that we should review his claim de novo on the basis of an argument that Mr. Zubia-Torres personally made during allocution. Aplt. Br. 12. There, Mr. Zubia-Torres stated through an interpreter: [o]ne thing that you're not taking into account with the trafficking charge is that the amount was ridiculous, that I was more of a drug addict than a drug trafficker. Sent. Tr. 11. He asks us to treat this statement as a challenge to the conclusion that his prior conviction was for drug trafficking. This Court has never held that a defendant's own statements during allocution are sufficient to preserve an issue regarding the proper calculation of the guidelines range. See FED.R.CRIM.P. 32(f)(1) (allowing parties to object to the PSR within fourteen days of receiving the report); id. at 32(i)(1)(D) (authorizing the court to allow parties, for good cause, to make new objections at any time before sentence is imposed). [2] Here, the defense made no objection to the PSR within the fourteen day period and did not ask the court to allow new objections after that point. Even assuming, however, that a challenge by the defendant during allocution could, under certain circumstances, suffice to raise an issue before the sentencing court, Mr. Zubia-Torres's vague statement was insufficient to raise a genuine dispute regarding the enhancement. To say that he was more of a drug addict than a drug trafficker does not deny that he was both; and it is possible to be convicted of drug trafficking for sale of even a small quantity of methamphetamine. The legal issue, in any event, has to do with the breadth of the Nevada statute under which he was convicted and not with his actual conduct. We therefore reject the argument that we must review the propriety of the enhancement on a de novo basis.