United States v. Lafleur

In United States v. Lafleur, No. 23-30311 (5th Cir. June 5, 2024) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the sentence despite Lafleur’s argument that the district court had plainly erred by denying him the opportunity to speak before sentencing.

Before sentencing a defendant, district courts must address the defendant personally and allow the defendant “to speak or present any information to mitigate the sentence.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(4)(A)(ii). The Fifth Circuit requires “strict compliance” with that rule, so district courts must “unequivocally” inform the defendant of the right to allocute.

Here, the district court told defense counsel that it would “like to hear from the defendant,” saying that he “has an opportunity to address the Court if he wishes. He does not have to if he does not, but I want to give him that opportunity.” But defense counsel responded that Lafleur had “asked me to talk to you on his behalf, and he does not want to make a statement.”

Other circuits have held that “inquiries directed to defense counsel, by themselves, are insufficient,” see, e.g., United States v. Noel, 581 F.3d 490, 502 (7th Cir. 2009); United States v. Adams, 252 F.3d 276, 279 (3d Cir. 2001), and here the Fifth Circuit “assume[d] arguendo” that Lafleur proved that the district court committed plain error.

Nevertheless, the Fifth Circuit denied relief because of the plain error standard of review. It concluded that there was “no objective basis that would have moved the trial court to grant a lower sentence,” and it declined to exercise its discretion to remedy the error. The court affirmed the sentence despite assuming there was plain error that had affected Lafleur’s substantial rights.