United States v. Silva ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                  FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                  No. 05-50871
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                            D.C. No.
    CR-02-01933-NAJ
    PAUL SILVA,
    OPINION
    Defendant-Appellant.
    
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of California
    Napoleon A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted
    September 15, 2006—Pasadena, California
    Filed January 3, 2007
    Before: J. Clifford Wallace, Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, and
    Kim McLane Wardlaw, Circuit Judges.
    Opinion by Judge O’Scannlain
    25
    UNITED STATES v. SILVA                  27
    COUNSEL
    Jason M. Goldberg, Assistant United States Attorney, Office
    of the United States Attorney, San Diego, California, argued
    the cause for the plaintiff-appellee and Carol C. Lam, United
    States Attorney and Roger W. Haines, Jr., Assistant United
    States Attorney were on the brief.
    Steven F. Hubachek, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc.,
    San Diego, California, argued the cause for the defen-
    dant-appellant and was on the brief.
    OPINION
    O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge:
    We must decide whether a defendant has a right to allocute
    during a limited remand to the district court from a sentencing
    appeal.
    28                     UNITED STATES v. SILVA
    I
    A jury in the Southern District of California convicted
    appellant Paul Silva of importation of marijuana and posses-
    sion of marijuana with intent to distribute. The district judge
    held a sentencing hearing, in which he considered the Proba-
    tion Officer’s Report, Silva’s Sentencing Memorandum and
    Departure Request, the Addendum to the Probation Officer’s
    Report, and the Government’s Sentencing Summary Chart.
    He expressly asked Silva whether he wished to comment;
    Silva declined to speak.
    In determining Silva’s sentence, the district judge applied
    the then-mandatory Federal Sentencing Guidelines. He
    declined to depart downward based on diminished capacity,
    after finding that Silva was voluntarily intoxicated and might
    endanger the public if released sooner. He calculated a crimi-
    nal history score, but reduced it, after concluding that “the
    criminal history [wa]s overrepresented by one level.”1 Sen-
    tencing Silva to 77 months in prison and three years of super-
    vised release, he recommended that Silva be housed near his
    relatives and enrolled in a drug treatment program.2
    Silva appealed. We rejected his procedural and evidentiary
    claims, but granted a limited remand, as required by United
    States v. Ameline, 
    409 F.3d 1073
    , 1084-86 (9th Cir. 2005) (en
    banc), in order to “determine from the record whether the dis-
    trict court would have imposed a materially different sentence
    if it had known that the United States Sentencing Guidelines
    were advisory rather than mandatory, as the Supreme Court
    1
    Reducing the criminal history score lowered the corresponding range
    of possible incarceration from 84-105 months to 77-96 months.
    2
    Following imposition of the sentence and recommendations, Silva
    blurted out: “No, way, man. Wait, I want to say something, dude. The
    maximum is five years, man.” However, no further comments by Silva
    were entered in the record, and Silva does not claim that he was denied
    a right to allocute during the original sentencing proceeding.
    UNITED STATES v. SILVA                          29
    held in Booker.” See United States v. Silva, No. 03-50458,
    
    2005 WL 1669569
    , at **1 (9th Cir. July 1, 2005).
    Receiving the case on limited remand, the district court
    solicited submissions from counsel, as required under Ame-
    line. 
    See 409 F.3d at 1085
    . Silva’s counsel sought a full sen-
    tencing hearing at which Silva could appear, but the district
    judge responded: “[A] full sentencing hearing . . . is not the
    mandate issued by the Ninth Circuit . . . [and] the defendant’s
    presence is not warranted.” The judge reaffirmed Silva’s orig-
    inal sentence: “[H]aving reviewed the written comments of
    counsel and the factors pursuant to 3553(a), [the court] finds
    that the sentence imposed by this court would not be different
    under the advisory guidelines and, on that basis, reaffirms the
    sentence previously imposed by the court.” (emphasis added).
    Silva timely appeals.
    II
    Silva argues that he had a right to allocute during the lim-
    ited remand proceeding. In support of this right, he cites our
    decision in Ameline, our due process jurisprudence, and Fed-
    eral Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.
    A
    In Ameline, our en banc court considered the need to cor-
    rect unpreserved Booker error, and noted that “plain error
    analysis” can be particularly difficult in cases “where it is not
    possible to reliably determine from the record whether the
    sentence imposed would have been materially different had
    the district court known that the Guidelines were advisory.”
    
    Ameline, 409 F.3d at 1084
    . In such cases, “we will remand to
    the sentencing court to answer that question.” Id.3
    3
    Four circuits have adopted this limited remand procedure to assess the
    possibility of Booker error. See United States v. Crosby, 
    397 F.3d 103
    (2d
    Cir. 2005); United States v. Paladino, 
    401 F.3d 471
    (7th Cir. 2005);
    United States v. Coles, 
    403 F.3d 764
    (D.C. Cir. 2005); and Ameline, 
    409 F.3d 1073
    .
    30                  UNITED STATES v. SILVA
    [1] On remand, Ameline requires the district court to make
    a subjective determination, based upon a review of the record
    and the submissions of counsel, as to whether the sentence
    would have been materially different under advisory Guide-
    lines. The materials relevant to the inquiry mirror those con-
    sidered by an appellate court during plain error analysis:
    In answering the question we pose, the district court
    need not determine or express what the sentence
    would have been in an advisory system. It is enough
    that the sentence would have been materially differ-
    ent. We agree with the Second Circuit that the
    “views of counsel, at least in writing,” should be
    obtained.
    
    Ameline, 409 F.3d at 1085
    (citing 
    Crosby, 397 F.3d at 120
    ).
    We circumscribed not only the relevant materials but the
    effect of the remand inquiry. 
    Id. If the
    district judge decides
    that she would have chosen the same sentence, no plain error
    occurred, and the original sentence stands. 
    Id. However, if
    the
    judge would have selected a different sentence, her pre-
    Booker reliance on the mandatory Guidelines constitutes
    reversible error, and resentencing must follow. 
    Id. [2] Importantly,
    Ameline allows a district judge to proceed
    directly from error analysis to resentencing, without any
    appellate involvement. See 
    id. at 1080
    (adopting the “less
    cumbersome” approach of the Second Circuit, so that “if a
    district court judge determines that resentencing is warranted
    after remand from the court of appeals, he or she can simply
    vacate the sentence and resentence” (emphasis added)); see
    also 
    id. at 1089
    (Wardlaw, J., dissenting) (objecting that this
    procedure delegates an appellate function to the district
    courts). Despite Ameline’s fluid transition from error analysis
    to resentencing, the phases are distinct. See 
    id. at 1085.
    Most
    importantly, the separate event of a resentencing entails a far
    more extensive proceeding and is necessary only if the initial
    inquiry reveals sentencing error:
    UNITED STATES v. SILVA                          31
    In such a case, the original sentence will be vacated
    and the district court will resentence with the defen-
    dant present. In resentencing the defendant, the dis-
    trict court is permitted to take a fresh look at the
    relevant facts and the Guidelines consistent with
    Booker, the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, Rule 32
    of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and this
    opinion.
    
    Id. (citations omitted).
    Thus, we distinguished full resentenc-
    ing from the streamlined initial inquiry established by the
    Second Circuit, in which the district court “ ‘need not’ require
    the presence of the Defendant.” 
    Crosby, 397 F.3d at 120
    (cita-
    tion omitted); see also United States v. Jasper, 
    2005 WL 774519
    , at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2005) (noting that Crosby
    does not require a defendant to be present during the initial
    inquiry).
    [3] In Silva’s case, the district judge properly followed the
    Ameline procedure: He evaluated the record, considered the
    views of counsel, and concluded that he would have chosen
    the same sentence under a discretionary regime. Ameline pro-
    vides no right for a defendant even to be present during such
    a limited inquiry, and so by necessary implication does not
    support a right to allocute therein.4
    4
    Although Ameline delineates the procedure to be followed on limited
    remand, Silva contends that the remand should be compared to the non-
    traditional sentencing proceedings in United States v. Behrens, 
    375 U.S. 162
    (1963), at which a defendant has a right to allocute. In Behrens, the
    Court held that a defendant may speak in a hearing to determine whether
    results of a study would lead the court to modify a previously tentative
    sentence. 
    Id. at 164-66.
    The function of an Ameline remand does not mir-
    ror the sentencing purpose in Behrens. An Ameline remand allows a court
    to ascertain whether plain error occurred in an original sentence intended
    to be final, and does not require new evidence or resentencing, unless such
    error is found.
    32                  UNITED STATES v. SILVA
    B
    Silva then asks us to add a gloss to Ameline. In particular,
    he argues that our Ameline decision should not be read to
    accept fully the Second Circuit’s Crosby approach, which he
    claims lacks a legal basis. Yet our court has repeatedly
    espoused the Crosby method. See 
    Ameline, 409 F.3d at 1082
    (“[T]he limited remand procedure set forth in Crosby best
    resolves this unique issue that has arisen in the wake of the
    Supreme Court’s holding in Booker.”); United States v. Mont-
    gomery, 
    462 F.3d 1067
    , 1069-70 (9th Cir. 2006) (restating
    explicitly what Ameline requires through references to
    Crosby).
    Although we have never specifically addressed the right of
    allocution during an Ameline remand, we clarified the requi-
    site procedures. In Montgomery, we declared: “Read in con-
    text, Ameline requires, at a minimum, that the district court
    obtain, or at least call for, the views of counsel in writing
    before deciding whether re-sentencing is 
    necessary.” 462 F.3d at 1070
    . There, we declined to complicate the Ameline inquiry
    by turning it into a full-fledged sentencing proceeding, in
    which a right to allocute would be essential.
    III
    [4] Finding no support in Ameline for Silva’s right to allo-
    cute, we turn to Silva’s due process argument. We have previ-
    ously stated: “In the context of criminal law, the backbone of
    [our] democratic faith is the right of a criminal defendant to
    defend himself against his accusers; and it has long been rec-
    ognized that allocution, the right of the defendant to person-
    ally address the court, is an essential element of a criminal
    defense.” Boardman v. Estelle, 
    957 F.2d 1523
    , 1526 (9th Cir.
    1992) (footnote omitted). The purpose of the right of allocu-
    tion is to allow a defendant to “bring mitigating circumstances
    to the attention of the court.” Sherman v. United States, 
    383 F.2d 837
    , 839 (9th Cir. 1967). Due process requires that a
    UNITED STATES v. SILVA                    33
    defendant who seeks to speak must be given such an opportu-
    nity before a sentence is imposed. See 
    Boardman, 957 F.2d at 1524
    .
    [5] While these cases clearly place the right of allocution
    on a strong constitutional foundation, they do not clarify
    whether such right exists during an Ameline remand proceed-
    ing. Of course, due process does not mandate an opportunity
    to speak at every judicial proceeding that may affect a convic-
    tion or sentence. In United States v. Veatch, 
    674 F.2d 1217
    (9th Cir. 1981), we discerned no due process violation where
    the defendant was not allowed to be present at a pretrial con-
    ference. 
    Id. at 1225.
    In Stein v. United States, 
    313 F.2d 518
    (9th Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 
    373 U.S. 918
    (1963), we
    affirmed the district court’s denial of the defendant’s motion
    attacking the sentence, although the trial judge denied the
    motion without a hearing. 
    Id. at 522.
    In Olney v. United
    States, 
    433 F.2d 161
    (9th Cir. 1970), we concluded that the
    defendant had no right to be present at a pretrial conference,
    although we stopped short of suggesting “that there is no right
    whatever to be present at hearings on pre- and/or post-trial
    motions.” 
    Id. at 163.
    [6] Moreover, we have decided that allocution is not always
    necessary in the case of sentencing error. In United States v.
    Knows His Gun, 
    438 F.3d 913
    (9th Cir. 2006), we considered
    whether “a remand is appropriate so that [a defendant] can
    ‘exercise his right to allocution unencumbered by the manda-
    tory nature of the Guidelines’ and also introduce evidence of
    other factors, such as ‘background, character and conduct,’
    which were not relevant under a mandatory Guidelines
    regime.” 
    Id. at 919-20.
    At Knows His Gun’s original sentenc-
    ing, the district court judge anticipated the possibility that the
    Guidelines might later be found unconstitutional. 
    Id. He con-
    sidered evidence regarding non-Guidelines factors, gave the
    defendant an opportunity to speak, and chose an “alternate
    sentence” unconstrained by the Guidelines. 
    Id. (weighing all
    § 3553 factors, but reaching an identical sentence). We
    34                      UNITED STATES v. SILVA
    affirmed, concluding that an Ameline remand was unneces-
    sary, because the defendant had already had a chance to pre-
    sent non-Guidelines evidence at the original sentencing and
    needed no further right to allocute.5 
    Id. [7] Applying
    this reasoning to the Ameline remand context,
    we conclude that a defendant does not have a right to allocute.
    Due process requires a defendant to have an opportunity to
    “bring mitigating circumstances to the attention of the court,”
    
    Sherman, 383 F.2d at 839
    , only when a new sentence is to be
    imposed.6 Because an Ameline remand merely requires review
    of the record and the views of counsel, due process does not
    require allocution.
    IV
    [8] Last, we address Silva’s argument that Fed. R. Crim. P.
    32 mandates allocution during an Ameline remand. We
    acknowledge that the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
    may create rights that are not guaranteed by the Constitution.
    5
    In United States v. Leasure, 
    122 F.3d 837
    , 840 (9th Cir. 1997), we
    noted that even during an original sentencing hearing, the right to allocute
    is not absolute: Once a defendant has had a “clear and unrestricted oppor-
    tunity . . . to make any statement,” the defendant may be denied a later
    opportunity to speak, without any violation of “her rights under due pro-
    cess or Rule 32.” 
    Id. at 841.
       6
    Despite the circumscribed scope of an Ameline remand, Silva argues
    that such a remand necessarily involves the consideration of new evi-
    dence, because a district judge no longer must confine his analysis to the
    Guidelines factors. Silva correctly points out that a judge may give signifi-
    cant weight to “[m]ental and emotional conditions,” which are “not ordi-
    narily relevant in determining whether a departure is warranted.” U.S.S.G.
    § 5H1.3 (2004). However, the Guidelines, even when mandatory, did not
    preclude consideration of such factors. Indeed, Silva was allowed to pre-
    sent extensive and expert testimony regarding his mental and emotional
    problems. That evidence became part of the record, which the district
    judge considered on remand. Under Ameline, we do not second-guess the
    district court’s subjective determination that these factors would not have
    changed his sentencing decision.
    UNITED STATES v. SILVA                           35
    Here, we inquire whether an opportunity to allocute during an
    Ameline remand, though not mandated by the Constitution, is
    required as a statutory matter. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32 specifies
    that before sentencing, a “court must . . . address the defen-
    dant 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). In Boardman, we noted that this rule
    applies in some situations where the Constitution would not
    require allocution. 
    See 957 F.2d at 1526
    (“[The] sentencing
    judge’s failure to ask a defendant if he had anything to say,
    although a violation of Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(a)(1)(C), was not
    an error of Constitutional dimension . . . .” (citing Hill v.
    United States, 
    368 U.S. 424
    (1962)) (emphasis added) (foot-
    note omitted)).7
    We have not confined the application of Fed. R. Crim. P.
    32 to the context of original sentencing. In United States v.
    Carper, 
    24 F.3d 1157
    (9th Cir. 1994), we determined that the
    rule provides a right to allocute before revocation of parole,
    because “although the defendant may have had the opportu-
    nity to speak at the original sentencing hearing, the conduct
    giving rise to the new sentence is different.” 
    Id. at 1161-62.
    Silva contends that our decision in United States v. Gun-
    ning, 
    401 F.3d 1145
    (9th Cir. 2005), interprets Fed. R. Crim.
    P. 32 to require allocution upon limited remand. In Gunning,
    we remanded a case to the district court for the limited pur-
    pose of recording whether the court had considered a minor
    role adjustment at original sentencing. 
    Id. at 1147-48.
    If the
    district court found that it had not, it was to resentence in light
    of the evidence for and against a minor role adjustment. 
    Id. 7 The
    Hill Court referenced Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(a)(1)(C), which applies
    to offenses committed prior to November 1, 1987. This rule, like Fed. R.
    Crim. P. 32(i)(4)(A)(ii), requires a sentencing court to “address the defen-
    dant personally and ask the defendant if the defendant wishes to make a
    statement in the defendant’s own behalf and to present any information in
    mitigation of punishment.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(a)(1)(C).
    36                  UNITED STATES v. SILVA
    at 1148. The district court then held a hearing regarding the
    adjustment, viewed evidence it had not already considered,
    and decided to reimpose the same sentence. 
    Id. During this
    proceeding, the judge neglected his duties under Fed. R.
    Crim. P. 32 to “afford the defendant an opportunity to present
    all available accurate information bearing on mitigation of
    punishment” and “then listen and give careful and serious
    consideration to such information.” 
    Id. at 1147
    (internal quo-
    tation marks and citations omitted). We vacated and
    remanded, concluding that “the district court overlooked
    according Gunning his right of allocution at resentencing.” 
    Id. at 1149
    n.6; see also 
    id. at 1150
    (“We are not able to say that
    the district court could not have lowered Gunning’s sentence
    had he been given an opportunity to speak.”).
    Gunning does not govern Silva’s appeal, because Silva
    received an opportunity to speak before sentencing (although
    he refused). The district judge never resentenced him, and
    never held a hearing to consider evidence that had not been
    presented at the original sentencing. Therefore, Gunning is
    inapposite.
    [9] Ogden v. United States, 
    323 F.2d 818
    (9th Cir. 1963),
    provides a better analogy to the limited inquiry made in
    Silva’s case. In Ogden, we held that the defendant had no
    right of allocution during a limited remand intended “solely
    for the purpose of permitting the trial court to supplement the
    record to enable it to determine whether prejudicial error had
    occurred. The conviction was to be set aside and a new trial
    ordered only if the trial court concluded that such error had
    occurred.” 
    Id. at 822.
    The narrow purpose of the remand in
    Ogden is similar to the constrained nature of an Ameline
    remand. As in Ogden, we discern no right of allocution during
    so limited an inquiry.
    V
    [10] Our review of Ameline, our due process jurisprudence,
    and Fed. R. Crim. P. 32 reveal no constitutional or statutory
    UNITED STATES v. SILVA                    37
    reason to require allocution during an Ameline remand. We
    emphasize that the Ameline procedure is limited, and that
    “[w]hile this court has held that the right to allocute at sen-
    tencing has the same quality as the right to put on a defense
    . . . it has never held that a defendant has a right to unlimited
    allocution.” 
    Leasure, 122 F.3d at 840
    . Denying allocution
    during a remand to discern sentencing error does not infringe
    on a defendant’s constitutional rights, and our judicial role
    precludes us from engrafting new requirements into the Fed-
    eral Rules of Criminal Procedure.
    AFFIRMED.