United States v. Alfredo Dominguez-Hernandez

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Alfredo Dominguez-Hernandez

934 F.2d 598, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 12071, 1991 WL 100555

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 13, 1991

Docket90-8623

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 934 F.2d 598 (United States v. Alfredo Dominguez-Hernandez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Alfredo Dominguez-Hernandez, 934 F.2d 598, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 12071, 1991 WL 100555 (5th Cir. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Dominguez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess ten machine guns, violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 922(o)(l), and was sentenced to thirty months imprisonment followed by a three-year term of supervised release and a $50 special assessment. With misgivings, we are forced to vacate and remand for resentencing.

Dominguez’s brief on appeal raises but one issue: that the district court did not specifically address him and determine whether he wished to exercise his right to allocution. This court has repeatedly held, as the government recognizes, that a de *599 fendant must be given an opportunity, conferred by Fed.Rule Crim.Proc, 32(a)(1)(C), personally to speak in his own behalf before sentence is imposed. See, e.g., U.S. v. Posner, 868 F.2d 720, 724 (5th Cir.1989). If the district court fails to provide the right of allocution, resentencing is required. Id. We re-endorse here the importance of the district court’s inviting the defendant to speak if he so desires.

What bothers us, however, is that neither defendant nor his counsel mentioned to the district court its omission of the Rule 32(a)(1)(C) requirement. As the government observes, “the district court easily could have corrected its oversight without the need for burdening this Court with the issue or for repeating the sentencing hearing.” See United States v. Jackson, 807 F.2d 1185, 1192 (5th Cir.1986). Defendant’s brief does not even aver that, upon resentencing, he wishes to exercise his right to allocution. We thus remand in what may well be a useless bow to procedural nicety.

The judgment of the district court is VACATED and REMANDED for resen-tencing.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Dominguez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess ten machine guns, violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 922(o)(l), and was sentenced to thirty months imprisonment followed by a three-year term of supervised release and a $50 special assessment. With misgivings, we are forced to vacate and remand for resentencing.

Dominguez’s brief on appeal raises but one issue: that the district court did not specifically address him and determine whether he wished to exercise his right to allocution. This court has repeatedly held, as the government recognizes, that a de *599 fendant must be given an opportunity, conferred by Fed.Rule Crim.Proc, 32(a)(1)(C), personally to speak in his own behalf before sentence is imposed. See, e.g., U.S. v. Posner, 868 F.2d 720, 724 (5th Cir.1989). If the district court fails to provide the right of allocution, resentencing is required. Id. We re-endorse here the importance of the district court’s inviting the defendant to speak if he so desires.

What bothers us, however, is that neither defendant nor his counsel mentioned to the district court its omission of the Rule 32(a)(1)(C) requirement. As the government observes, “the district court easily could have corrected its oversight without the need for burdening this Court with the issue or for repeating the sentencing hearing.” See United States v. Jackson, 807 F.2d 1185, 1192 (5th Cir.1986). Defendant’s brief does not even aver that, upon resentencing, he wishes to exercise his right to allocution. We thus remand in what may well be a useless bow to procedural nicety.

The judgment of the district court is VACATED and REMANDED for resen-tencing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

934 F.2d 598, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 12071, 1991 WL 100555, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-alfredo-dominguez-hernandez-ca5-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack