Court Opinion

ID: 9964035
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-26 20:01:27.147912+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:08.610733
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11362    Document: 34-1     Date Filed: 04/26/2024   Page: 1 of 7

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-11362
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       DOMINGO MARTINEZ GONZALEZ,
                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 8:89-cr-00110-WFJ-MAP-1
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-11362      Document: 34-1     Date Filed: 04/26/2024     Page: 2 of 7

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 23-11362

       Before JORDAN, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Domingo Gonzalez appeals the district court’s revocation of
       his supervised release and the resulting sixty-month sentence. The
       district court did not err in revoking his supervised release. But be-
       cause it plainly erred by failing to extend to him personally an op-
       portunity to allocute, we must vacate his sentence and remand for
       resentencing.
                                         I.

               Three-and-a-half decades ago, Gonzalez was sentenced to
       just under sixteen years in prison and five years of supervised re-
       lease, for conspiracy to possess crack cocaine with intent to distrib-
       ute. After being released from prison, he began supervised release.
              Supervision started strong. But old habits returned. Six
       months in, he tested positive for cocaine. He was ordered to par-
       ticipate in drug treatment. He didn’t. After a month or two, he was
       found in possession of more crack cocaine. He also struggled with
       other aspects of supervised release, namely in communicating with
       his probation officer. He didn’t submit written monthly reports.
       He didn’t update his probation officer about changes in his resi-
       dence. He didn’t inform the officer about any dealings with law
       enforcement, like being arrested or questioned.
              Things escalated. Gonzalez had a pending drug case in state
       court for which he failed to appear. He abandoned supervision and
       was at large. The probation office recommended that his
USCA11 Case: 23-11362      Document: 34-1     Date Filed: 04/26/2024     Page: 3 of 7

       23-11362               Opinion of the Court                         3

       supervision be revoked and that he be sentenced to the statutory
       maximum of five years in prison. A warrant for his arrest was is-
       sued.
              Eighteen years later, the warrant was executed. The district
       court held a revocation hearing. There were five alleged super-
       vised-release violations. Four of them involved the breakdown in
       communication between probation and Gonzalez as well as his fail-
       ure to participate in drug treatment. He pleaded guilty to those
       four.
              The last alleged violation concerned him committing addi-
       tional drug crimes and then fleeing. He denied that one. After con-
       sidering the evidence, including affidavits, reports, and testimony,
       the district court found him guilty of that violation as well. It sen-
       tenced him to the statutory maximum of sixty months in prison.
               This appeal followed. Gonzalez broadly makes three points.
       First, he argues that the district court erred in revoking his super-
       vised release because it made numerous errors in the proceedings
       concerning that last supervised-release violation. Second, he ar-
       gued that the district court erred in imposing the sentence because
       it failed to personally extend to him the right to allocute. Third, he
       says the sentence it imposed is procedurally and substantively un-
       reasonable. The government cedes the second point but opposes
       the other two.
USCA11 Case: 23-11362         Document: 34-1         Date Filed: 04/26/2024         Page: 4 of 7

       4                          Opinion of the Court                       23-11362

                                              II.

              We review a district court’s revocation of supervised release
       for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Frazier, 26 F.3d 110, 112
       (11th Cir. 1994). Because Gonzalez did not clearly object to the
       court’s failure to extend to him his right to allocute, we review that
       issue for plain error. See United States v. Vandergrift, 754 F.3d 1303,
       1307 (11th Cir. 2014)
                                             III.

             Gonzalez challenges the revocation of his supervised release
       and the resulting sentence. We will address each in turn.
                                              A.

              Before revoking a defendant’s supervised release, a district
       court needs to find one violation of his supervised-release condi-
       tions. See id. At that point, any possible error in considering other
       alleged violations becomes harmless. United States v. Brown, 656
       F.2d 1204, 1207 (5th Cir. Unit A Sep. 1981). 1 There are different
       grades of supervised-release violations: a grade-A violation includes
       any controlled substance offense, and a grade-C violation includes
       any other violation of the supervised-release conditions. U.S.
       Sent’g Guidelines Manual § 7B1.1(a)(1)(ii)–(a)(3)(B).

       1 We are bound by decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth

       Circuit issued before October 1, 1981. Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206,
       1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).
USCA11 Case: 23-11362       Document: 34-1       Date Filed: 04/26/2024       Page: 5 of 7

       23-11362                 Opinion of the Court                            5

               Gonzalez asserts that the district court erred in revoking his
       supervised release because it allegedly relied on hearsay evidence
       to determine that he committed a grade-A violation, without en-
       gaging in the required balancing test under United States v. Frazier,
       26 F.3d 110 (11th Cir. 1994). We need not determine whether that
       argument has any merit. Gonzalez separately admitted that he
       committed four grade-C violations. Those violations inde-
       pendently support the revocation of his supervised release. So the
       district court did not err in revoking his supervised release.
                                           B.

               “Before imposing [a] sentence” a district court must “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). This right, called the right of allocution, is ancient;
       a court’s failure to extend that right to the defendant constitutes
       plain error. United States v. Carruth, 528 F.3d 845, 846 (11th Cir.
       2008). Even if a defendant’s counsel declines on the defendant’s be-
       half, a district court must still ask the defendant personally whether
       he wishes to allocute. United States v. Perez, 661 F.3d 568, 584 (11th
       Cir. 2011) (citing Gordon v. United States, 518 F.3d 1291, 1299 (11th
       Cir.2008); United States v. Prouty, 303 F.3d 1249, 1251 n. 1 (11th
       Cir.2002)). We have held that when “the defendant was not af-
       forded the opportunity to allocute and the court did not impose the
       lowest sentence under the guidelines,” we presume prejudice and
       manifest injustice under the plain-error standard and must vacate
       the sentence. See Prouty, 303 F.3d at 1252–53.
USCA11 Case: 23-11362      Document: 34-1       Date Filed: 04/26/2024     Page: 6 of 7

       6                       Opinion of the Court                  23-11362

               The district court here asked Gonzalez’s counsel whether
       Gonzalez wished to allocute. His counsel answered no. The district
       court accepted his counsel’s answer without asking Gonzalez. The
       district court moved on to impose a sentence within the guidelines,
       though not the lowest. But the law commands that the defendant
       also be asked personally whether he wishes to allocute. Failure to
       do that is plain error. And when a lower guidelines sentence exists,
       we presume prejudice and manifest injustice. So we must vacate
       Gonzalez’s sentence and remand for resentencing.
               But this resentencing need not retread old ground. Gonzalez
       “is entitled to an opportunity to allocute and have the court resen-
       tence him after he says what he wishes to say to the judge,” but he
       is not entitled to relitigate all issues related to his sentence at that
       proceeding. See United States v. Doyle, 857 F.3d 1115, 1121 (11th Cir.
       2017). Instead, he will be sent back in time to the moment of the
       district court’s error, and “[h]is sentencing hearing will . . . resume
       with the district court addressing him personally,” asking him if he
       wishes to allocute. Perez, 661 F.3d at 586. Then, the district court
       will impose a new sentence.
             Although Gonzalez additionally objects that his sentence
       was procedurally and substantively unreasonable, because we
       must vacate the district court’s sentence, we will not review it for
       reasonableness.
USCA11 Case: 23-11362     Document: 34-1      Date Filed: 04/26/2024    Page: 7 of 7

       23-11362               Opinion of the Court                        7

                                       IV.

              For the above reasons, the district court’s revocation of Gon-
       zalez’s supervised release is AFFIRMED, but its sentence is
       VACATED. We REMAND for resentencing.