United States v. Lamont Turrentine ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                      UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 20-4425
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    LAMONT TURRENTINE,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
    Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:19-cr-00245-BO-1)
    Submitted: October 28, 2021                                 Decided: December 20, 2021
    Before AGEE, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Michael W. Patrick, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL W. PATRICK, Chapel Hill, North
    Carolina, for Appellant. Robert J. Higdon, Jr., United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-
    Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States
    Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    A jury convicted Lamont Lee Turrentine of being a felon in possession of a firearm,
    in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 922
    (g)(1), 924. The district court sentenced him to 120
    months’ imprisonment.        Turrentine appeals, arguing that he was not afforded an
    opportunity to allocute. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
    Under Rule 32(i)(4)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a district
    court must “address the defendant personally in order to permit the defendant to speak or
    present any information to mitigate the sentence.” Because Turrentine failed to object at
    sentencing regarding the denial of his right to allocute, our review is for plain error. United
    States v. Engle, 
    676 F.3d 405
    , 424 (4th Cir. 2012). To establish plain error, Turrentine
    must show that “(1) an error was made; (2) the error is plain; (3) the error affects substantial
    rights; and (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of
    judicial proceedings.” United States v. Harris, 
    890 F.3d 480
    , 491 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal
    quotation marks omitted).
    “Rule 32 only requires the district court to address the defendant personally and
    permit him to speak or present any information to mitigate the sentence before sentence is
    imposed; apart from that requirement, the rule does not create a right of allocution at any
    specific point in the sentencing proceeding.” Engle, 676 F.3d at 425. Moreover, when
    inviting a defendant to allocute, the district court is not required to explicitly track the
    language of Rule 32(i)(4)(A)(ii). See United States v. Stuver, 
    845 F.2d 73
    , 74-75 (4th Cir.
    1988) (holding that Rule 32(a)(1)(C), the predecessor of Rule 32(i)(4)(A)(ii), was not
    violated because, although district court did not quote the language of the Rule, “[t]he court
    2
    specifically addressed the defendant by name at the beginning of the interchange,” the
    defendant responded to the court’s questions, and the defendant’s responses evidenced that
    he understood he was permitted “to speak in mitigation of his punishment”).
    Here, the district court began the sentencing hearing by asking, “Do you want to say
    anything, Mr. Turrentine?” Turrentine responded, “Yes, sir” and proceeded to make
    several arguments, including that his attorney was ineffective, the firearm recovered by
    police was not his, he did not shoot at police officers, there was insufficient evidence to
    convict him, and the Government’s account of his offense conduct was not logically
    consistent. Turrentine concluded by stating, “That’s all I have to say.” After the district
    court heard arguments from both parties with respect to the 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a) factors, it
    sentenced Turrentine to 120 months’ imprisonment. We find that the district court
    adequately complied with Rule 32(i)(4)(A)(ii). The district court’s invitation to speak
    specifically addressed Turrentine, he responded to the district court’s statements and
    questions, and his arguments were clear and direct attempts to mitigate the district court’s
    upcoming sentence. See Stuver, 
    845 F.2d at 74-75
    . Therefore, we find no error.
    Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s criminal judgment. We dispense with
    oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
    materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-4425

Filed Date: 12/20/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/20/2021