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[DO NOT PUBLISH]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.
