Opinion ID: 4111304
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Right to Allocution

Text: Palacios argues that although the district court allowed him the opportunity to speak with regard to acceptance of responsibility, the court did not allow him “the right to speak on any subject of his choosing prior to imposition of sentence.” We agree. “In order to satisfy Rule 32, the district court must communicate ‘unequivocally’ that the defendant has a right to allocute.” United States v. Magwood, 445 F.3d 826, 829 (5th Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Echegollen-Barrueta, 195 F.3d 786, 790 (5th Cir. 1999)). The 4 Case: 14-40279 Document: 00513812368 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/27/2016 No. 14-40279 district court must make a direct, personal inquiry to the defendant, applying the rule “quite literally.” Id. (citation omitted); see also United States v. Legg, 439 F. App’x 312, 313 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (determining that extensive discussion between district court and defendant did not constitute a “specific and unequivocal” allocution opportunity). “[T]he court, the prosecutor, and the defendant must at the very least interact in a manner that shows clearly and convincingly that the defendant knew he had a right to speak on any subject of his choosing prior to the imposition of sentence.” Magwood, 445 F.3d at 829 (quoting Echegollen-Barrueta, 195 F.3d at 789) (alteration in original) (internal quotation omitted). Although Palacios and the district court engaged in discussion prior to the imposition of his sentence, the record does not show that Palacios was given a specific and unequivocal opportunity to speak in mitigation of his sentence. After Palacios described his role in the conspiracy and the district court granted him a reduction for acceptance of responsibility, the district court then stated, “Okay. Anything else you want to add? I did review the letter from the church.” Palacios’s counsel responded to the court’s question with the statement: “Yes, your Honor, also the classes that he’s been taking while incarcerated in Willacy County. We also ask the Court to consider the age of his young son, your Honor.” It is unclear from the record to whom the district court addressed its open-ended question. The fact that (1) the immediately preceding dialogue had been between the court and the prosecution and (2) the court never interrupted defense counsel to clarify that its question had been directed to Palacios, makes plausible the conclusion that the question was not directed at Palacios but rather to his attorney. That any such ambiguity exists demonstrates that Palacios was not given a specific and unequivocal opportunity to speak. See Magwood, 445 F.3d at 829. Thus, we conclude that the first two prongs of the plain error test have been met: the district court 5 Case: 14-40279 Document: 00513812368 Page: 6 Date Filed: 12/27/2016 No. 14-40279 erred in failing to provide Palacios with an allocution opportunity, and that error was clear and obvious. See id; United States v. Perez, 460 F. App’x 294, 299–300 (5th Cir. 2012) (per curiam); Legg, 439 F. App’x at 313.