Court Opinion

ID: 9389299
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-25 15:00:55.026821+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:26.568768
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12712    Document: 35-1     Date Filed: 04/25/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                               [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-12712
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       LOUIS CHARLES YOUNGLOVE,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 0:21-cr-60078-RAR-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12712     Document: 35-1      Date Filed: 04/25/2023    Page: 2 of 3

       2                      Opinion of the Court                22-12712

       Before LUCK, BRASHER, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Louis Younglove appeals from his 120-month sentence for
       possession with intent to distribute controlled substances, in viola-
       tion of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), and 841(b)(1)(C). He as-
       serts the district court plainly erred in interrupting his allocution
       because he was addressing the same issues already raised by his at-
       torney earlier in the sentencing hearing.
              Under Rule 32(i)(4)(A)(ii), the district court must, during
       sentencing, “address the defendant personally in order to permit
       the defendant to speak or present any information to mitigate the
       sentence.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(4)(A)(ii). We have held allocution
       is the defendant’s right to make a final plea on his own behalf to
       speak or present any mitigating information. United States v.
       Prouty, 303 F.3d 1249, 1251 (11th Cir. 2002). Further, in Prouty,
       we stated the right of allocution is premised on the idea that the
       most persuasive counsel may not be able to speak for the defendant
       as well as the defendant might speak for himself. Id. at 1253. Nev-
       ertheless, a judge may interrupt or cut short an allocution that has
       grown repetitive or has veered into irrelevant topics. United States
       v. Dorman, 488 F.3d 936, 942-43 (11th Cir. 2007).
              As an initial matter, we review Younglove’s claim for plain
       error because he raises it for the first time on appeal. See United
       States v. George, 872 F.3d 1197, 1206-07 (11th Cir. 2017) (reviewing
USCA11 Case: 22-12712       Document: 35-1      Date Filed: 04/25/2023      Page: 3 of 3

       22-12712                Opinion of the Court                           3

       the district court’s denial of a defendant’s right to allocution under
       the plain error standard when the defendant did not object at sen-
       tencing).
               The district court did not plainly err in interrupting
       Younglove’s allocution. The district court allowed Younglove to
       allocute for some time without interrupting. In interrupting, the
       district court did not instruct Younglove to wrap up his allocution,
       but rather asked him to focus on issues that had not already been
       covered by his attorney. After the court’s interruption, and its
       statement that it did not want to cut Younglove’s allocution short,
       Younglove stated he had nothing else to add. There is no prece-
       dent from either our Court or the Supreme Court holding that it is
       improper for a district court to interrupt an allocution because the
       defendant is addressing issues previously discussed by his attorney.
       See United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1357 (11th Cir. 2009)
       (explaining an error is not plain unless it is contrary to explicit stat-
       utory provisions or controlling precedent from either the Supreme
       Court or this Court). Similarly, there is no caselaw that states an
       interruption of a defendant’s allocution infringes on a defendant’s
       rights in the same way that denying the opportunity to allocute al-
       together does. Our precedent in Dorman suggests there are situa-
       tions where it is proper for the district court to interrupt or even
       cut short an allocution. See Dorman, 488 F.3d at 942-43.
              Accordingly, we affirm Younglove’s sentence.
              AFFIRMED.